1998 (1) TMI 515 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Lack of residential accommodation for Tribunal members at Jaipur.
2. Responsibility for providing accommodation between Central and State Governments.
3. Entitlement to House Rent Allowance (HRA) versus provision of official accommodation.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on judicial officers to Tribunal members.
5. Contempt proceedings for non-compliance with court orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Lack of residential accommodation for Tribunal members at Jaipur:
The litigation, pending since July 1997, highlights the issue of providing official accommodation to members of the Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, particularly its Judicial Member, Shri R.K. Gupta. The Central Government lacks a General Pool of residential accommodation in Jaipur, and the State Government, which has been providing accommodation since 1971, has ceased to do so in recent years. This has resulted in a standstill in the functioning of the Jaipur Bench due to the unavailability of judicial officers willing to be posted there without suitable housing.

2. Responsibility for providing accommodation between Central and State Governments:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot residential accommodation to Tribunal members at Jaipur. The Central Government argued that it does not have a General Pool of residential accommodation in Jaipur and depends on the State Government, which benefits from a larger share of revenue generated from direct taxes. The State Government contended that under existing rules, it is not feasible to allot houses to Central Government employees, including Tribunal members.

3. Entitlement to House Rent Allowance (HRA) versus provision of official accommodation:
The Central Government submitted that Shri Gupta is entitled to 15% of his basic pay as HRA, amounting to Rs. 3,429 per month, as per the Fifth Pay Commission recommendations. However, this amount is insufficient to rent a suitable house in Jaipur. The court noted that the provision of HRA is not a substitute for adequate housing, and both the Central and State Governments are responsible for ensuring suitable accommodation for Tribunal members.

4. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on judicial officers to Tribunal members:
The court referenced the Supreme Court's observations in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, emphasizing the necessity of providing official residences to judicial officers to ensure their independence and proper functioning. The court extended these principles to Tribunal members, recognizing their role as judicial officers who perform judicial functions and require suitable housing to maintain their independence and status.

5. Contempt proceedings for non-compliance with court orders:
The court had previously directed the respondents to provide suitable accommodation to Shri Gupta within one month, which was not complied with. The court issued a notice to show cause for contempt proceedings. The Central Government argued that efforts were made to secure accommodation, but the court found these efforts insufficient and emphasized the need for compliance with its directions.

Conclusion and Directions:
The court directed the Union Government, in coordination with the State Government, to take positive steps to solve the accommodation issue for Tribunal members at Jaipur. If suitable accommodation is not available from the State Government, the Central Government should allot housing from its General Pool or other departmental pools (Income-tax or Central Excise). If construction or availability of such housing is delayed, the Central Government must hire suitable accommodation and bear the excess rent beyond the HRA entitlement. The matter was scheduled for further review on 4-5-1998 to ensure compliance with these directions. The contempt notice was discharged, acknowledging the efforts made but stressing the need for full compliance with the court's orders.