A central government employee is not entitled to HRA if his or her spouse is allotted accommodation in the same town or city. This rule applies even if the employee resides in a separate house. An employee claimed HRA saying that he was living separately since 1996 and that he had been divorced in 2000. The tribunal held that he was entitled to HRA while upholding the rule. The Kerala High Court, however, ruled that HRA is a statutory right, and if the husband’s contention is accepted, any spouse may claim HRA by pleading marital discord (Deputy Director vs Manoharan).
An employee due for superannuation said that he was due to retire a year later as his service records have an incorrect date of birth (January 2, 1947). He produced a duplicate matriculation certificate, issued in 2004, that mentions his correct date of birth as January 2, 1948. The Orissa High Court rejected his application saying that when he had joined the company, he had made no objection to the “incorrect” entry in the service book, and therefore such protests could not be entertained 35 years later. Moreover, it would be unfair on his junior who was waiting in the wings to take over from him (Chakradhar Pradhan vs Managing Director, Orissa State Co-op. Agricultural Rural Devpt Bank Ltd & Ors).
A fisherman suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and blindness applied for financial relief to the Kerala Fisherman Welfare Fund Board (KFWFB). His claim was rejected as the relevant scheme did not cover the conditions he was suffering from. The Kerala High Court held that the provisions of the scheme should be interpreted liberally to extend its benefits to those unable to work. If financial help is offered to a paralysed person, it should also be given in the case of the applicant who was bedridden (KFWFB vs Kunjan Divakaran).
SOLON
