T.I.T Senior Secondary School v. Director Secondary Education
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10098-1993 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.05.2015 T.I.T. Senior Secondary School & anr.
.... Petitioners Vs.
The Director, Secondary Education, Haryana & ors. .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present :
Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Shruti Goyal, A.A.G., Haryana.
***
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** AJAY TEWARI, J.(Oral) This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents to make the payment of arrears of house allowance to the Management of the T.I.T. Schools-petitioners. On 25.03.2015 the following order was passed :-
!
"# !
$
! !
"# $
!
%
!
%
"#
%
!
!
"# !
!
&
$
'
(
# )
**+*,-. Today the learned Assistant Advocate General has shown the provisions of the Rules governing grant-in-aid and as per the same it has been specified that the grant-in-aid would be payable in respect of actual expenses incurred which are to the following effect:- "Section 24(2)(k)(l) of the Haryana School Education Act, 24(2)(k)...the conditions under which aid may be granted to recognised school and on the violation of which aid may be stopped, reduced or suspended;
24(2)(l)...the part of the expenditure of a recognized school which is to be covered by aid;
Rule 54 of the Haryana School Education Rules, 2003 54.
Salary grant. - sections 24(2) (a) (k) and 3. /0 %
12-3
(
4!
!
(
!
!
5 / 0
!
(
!
6
6
#
"
#
4 !
5 /0
6
#
"
# /0 8
6
#
"
# 7 /0 9/4 6:
0 6
#
"
# /!0
6
7
/0
/0
/0
& '
7 /!0
;
!
/*0%
(
) .
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that as far as the Government is concerned the employees, not being in Government accommodation would be entitled to HRA and it hardly makes a difference whether that HRA is paid to the employee or to the employer once the right of the employee is there.
To my mind, this argument is fallacious. As per the rules and the scheme the Government has to defray to the private management 75% of the deficit of the expenses incurred. Had the petitioners actually paid HRA and incurred that expenses it was entitled to claim 75% of the same but once no expense has been incurred towards payment of HRA the petitioners would not be able to claim that even if it has not paid any amount for HRA yet since it has provided the houses to its employees, the amount of HRA admissible to the
employee should be defrayed. The essence of the scheme is for assistance towards the difference in income and expense and not to grant the benefit to the employees per se.
No other argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Petition is dismissed.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) May 20, 2015 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I