No HC relief for retd officer who drew HRA for 30 years

first_imgMumbai, Mar 29 (PTI) The Bombay High Court has declined to stay an order of recovery of Rs 3.09 lakhs from the pension of a retired government employee, who had drawn house rent allowance in his salary for 30 years despite having an official accommodation during the same period.Dattatraya Yadav, a Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) in Pay and Accounts Department of the state government, had drawn from 1975to2005, a period of 30 years, house rent allowance, despite full knowledge that he was not entitled to receive the same because he had been allotted a government accommodation since 1975.An order was passed for recovery of the amount through a monthly deduction of Rs 10,000 from his pension, when it became known to authorities after he retired from service. The aggrieved officer then moved Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, seeking to restrain the recovery of HRA amount.The MAT, on November 14, 2014, confirmed the order about recovery of the amount following which Yadav knocked the doors of the high court.Itwas also the petitioners case that an amount of Rs 43,065has already been recovered from him and, therefore, he is entitled to refund of the amount from the government.Thepetitionerjoinedgovernmentserviceasaclerkin 1968andretiredin2005fromthepostofadministrative officer. He was Drawing and Disbursing Officer in the office of DeputyCommissionerofPolice,Bandra,from1997 to 2000, in wireless section from 2000 to 2003 andin the office of DCP,MT Section, Nagpadafrom2003to2005.”Thus,itisquiteclearthat the petitioner has handled responsiblepostsandcanbesaidto have sufficient knowledgeinthematterofpayallowancesin government service,” a bench of Chief Justice D H Waghela and Justice M S Sonak noted in their order recently.advertisement”Thepetitionerwas himself the DDO and it is not even his case that he was unaware that he was not entitled to draw HRA. The petitioners contention that his superiors should have detected the error,doesnotcommendtous,” the bench said.”Wereallyseenoreason to interfere with the impugned order,” the judges observed. (More) PTI SVS GK SC SDMlast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *