9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1899X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the wife of the petitioner was an employee of Oriental Bank of Commerce from February 1986 and that she has been receiving the house rent allowance - both the petitioner and his wife have been residing in the same accommodation. Government Order specifically provides that if both the husband and wife are in government service and if they are residing in the same accommodation, then house rent allowance can be claimed only by one of them. Also provides that the same conditions would apply if the spouse was employed in Local Bodies, Educational Institutions, Universities, Public Enterprises, Corporations etc, etc. The same condition was reiterated in the Government Order dated 28 April 2000. The wife of the petitioner was an employee of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en caused to the petitioner at all. WP dismissed. - WRIT - A No. - 13734 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 15-12-2016 - Hon'ble Dilip Gupta And Hon'ble Raghvendra Kumar , JJ. For the Petitioner : Dinesh Kumar,Nirvikar Gupta For the Respondent : C.S.C. ORDER This petition seeks quashing of the order dated 12 August 2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Tax, Saharanpur by which an amount of Rs.1,97,365/- has been deducted from the leave encashment to be paid to the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought quashing of the order dated 29 October 2015 by which an appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Joint Commissioner (Executive), Commercial Tax, Saharanpur Division-A, Sahar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his communication dated 21 May 2013 directed the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax to take action against the petitioner in accordance with the Government Order dated 28 February 1984. It is on the basis of these aforesaid facts that a communication dated 15 April 2014 was sent to the petitioner for recovery of amount of Rs.1,97,365/- from the leave encashment amount to be paid to the petitioner. This amount of house rent was for the period from February 1986 up to March 2014, when the petitioner retired. An appeal was filed by the petitioner, which has been rejected by the order dated 29 October 2015. These two orders dated 15 April 2014 and 29 October 2015 have been assailed in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he husband and wife are in government service and if they are residing in the same accommodation, then house rent allowance can be claimed only by one of them. It also provides that the same conditions would apply if the spouse was employed in Local Bodies, Educational Institutions, Universities, Public Enterprises, Corporations etc, etc. The same condition was reiterated in the Government Order dated 28 April 2000. The wife of the petitioner was an employee of the Oriental Bank of Commerce. This is an enterprise of the Central Government. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the conditions set out in the Government Order dated 28 February 1984 would not apply to the petitioner. This is what has also been observed by the Appellate Aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
