Safiya Malik

The High Court at Calcutta directed the release of House Rent Allowance (HRA), including arrears with interest, to a schoolteacher. The petitioner had sought judicial intervention after the withholding of HRA payments, citing previous judicial determinations in similar cases. The court considered the facts of the case and found no reason to take a different view from prior decisions granting similar relief. The directive remains subject to the final outcome of a pending appeal concerning the issue.

The petitioner, an approved Assistant Teacher at Baruipur Girls’ High School (H.S.), filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking the release of her House Rent Allowance. The District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), South 24 Parganas, had withheld the allowance based on a Memorandum issued by the Finance Department (Audit Branch) of the Government of West Bengal, referenced as No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9, 2012, and a subsequent Corrigendum Memorandum No. 8012-F(p2)/FA/O/2m/206/17(N.B.) dated December 27, 2018. The authorities contended that since the petitioner’s husband was employed in the private sector and received HRA, she was ineligible to receive the benefit under government policy.

The petitioner submitted that the 2018 Memorandum had been quashed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court in Mousumi Biswas & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 1389 of 2018) on March 16, 2021. She stated that although the State had appealed the decision in MAT 1023 of 2021, no stay had been granted. The petitioner also referred to a case where a similarly situated individual had been granted relief by the court in WPA 14006 of 2024 on May 21, 2024. She contended that the withholding of her HRA was inconsistent with these judicial determinations and sought a direction for the release of the amount due, including arrears with interest.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the denial of HRA was not justified and that there was no legal restriction preventing her from receiving the allowance. The petitioner relied on prior cases where relief had been granted to similarly placed individuals. The authorities, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, opposed the petition, arguing that any relief granted should be subject to the pending appeal in MAT 1023 of 2021. The State contended that since the Memorandum was still under challenge in appellate proceedings, the petitioner’s entitlement could not be considered settled. The government also argued that HRA policies were framed to prevent dual benefits within the same household and that withholding payments was in accordance with administrative guidelines.

Justice Jay Sengupta considered the submissions and examined the facts of the case. The judgment recorded, "It appears that the above-referred memorandum of 2018 was quashed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. However, an appeal is pending over the issue. But, no stay has been granted in the said appeal."

The court noted that relief had already been granted to another individual in a similar factual scenario. The judgment recorded, "Relying on the said decision, another Coordinate Bench of this Court has granted appropriate relief in favour of a similarly circumstanced individual."

The court observed that the State had not presented any factual distinction that would warrant a different conclusion in the petitioner’s case. The judgment recorded, "In the present facts which are quite similar, I find no reason to take a different view."

Regarding the pending appeal in MAT 1023 of 2021, the court acknowledged that the matter had not yet been resolved. However, since no stay order had been granted in the appeal, the petitioner’s claim could not be denied based on the pending proceedings. The judgment recorded, "It is, however, made clear that the payment of HRA in terms of this order is subject to the result of the above-referred pending appeal."

The court directed the concerned authorities to release the petitioner’s House Rent Allowance, including arrears, within six weeks from the date of communication of the order. The arrears were to be paid with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date on which the payments became due until the date of disbursement.

The court disposed of the writ petition, stating that, as no affidavits had been called for, the allegations contained in the petition were deemed not to have been admitted.

Case Title: Smt. Malabika Banerjee v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 2542 of 2025
Presiding Judge: Justice Jay Sengupta

[Read/Download order]