Bom OA No 575/2011 on 11-02-2013

Bom OA No 575/2011 on 11-02-2013

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.575/2011

Dated this Monday the 11th day of February, 2013

CORAM:- HON'BLE SMT. LEENA MEHENDALE,  MEMBER (A)

Shri G.K.Solanki CMD, Gr.II
in the office of The Chief Engineer,
Bhopal Zone, Bhopal (M.P.)
residing at:Room No.10,
Sudama Cottage, Lala Nigam Rd.
Colaba, Mumbai 400 005    - Applicant

(By Advocate Shri K.R.Yelwe)            

Versus
1. Union of India
through the Secretary to
the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Raksha Bhavan,
New Delhi-110 001

2. The Chief Engineer (Navy)
26, Assaye Building, Colaba,
Mumbai- 400 005

3. The Commander Works Engineer (NW)
Dr. Homi Bhabha Road, Navy Nagar,
Colaba, Mumbai- 400 005

4. The Chief Engineer Bhopal Zone,
Sultana Infantry Lines
Bhopal (M.P.) 462 001 - Respondents

(By Advocate Smt. H.P.Shah with Shri S.G.Pillai)      


O R D E R (ORAL)

Per :  Smt. Leena Mehendale , Member (A)

   This OA filed on 05.07.2011 is on simple point for getting HRA.  The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was occupying private accommodation till September, 2002 and was getting HRA. Thereafter, from October, 2002 onwards till August, 2010, he did not receive any HRA and did not make any application to the office to claim that he is entitled for HRA.
2. Hence, this OA, which is filed on July, 2011 after a long time, lacks any justification. Further it appears from R-1 that the respondents had alloted one accommodation to the applicant which is described as unclassified accommodation No.T-56-1-A and he moved to this accommodation on 7th October, 2003.  Obviously, he must have done it for the advantage of not having to occupy a private accommodation.  Today, after more than 10 years the applicant comes to argue that the said accommodation be called “Hut” and, therefore, the fact that he continued to occupy it should not come in his way of getting HRA.
3. This argument can hardly be accepted. The applicant was fully aware of what he was occupying when he accepted the said allotment and in any case, he cannot raise a claim after more than 10 years and after getting whatever small or big benefits of occupying the said accommodation.
4. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Smt. Leena Mehendale)
Member (A)                            

km*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------