14.07.2026 Sl. No.15(DL) Ct. No.14 srm IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE W.P.A. No. 21501 of 2025 Priya Basu versus The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. K.M. Hossain, Mr. Kazi Ardan Ali, Mr. Mayukh Saha …for the Petitioner. Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, Ms. Sneha Chatterjee …for the State. 1. Report filed by the State-respondents furnished by the District Inspector of Schools (Primary Education), Howrah dated 8th July, 2026 is taken on record. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks direction upon the respondent authorities to pay House Rent Allowance (in short „HRA‟) as well as arrear HRA which is accrued in the favour of the petitioner from the month of February, 2024 till date along with interest immediately. 3. The petitioner contends that she is an Assistant Teacher in Satashi Primary School, P.O. GIP Colony, Jagacha Circle, District-Howrah. The petitioner joined in the said school on 21st January, 2014. Since her joining the petitioner was receiving HRA. Subsequent thereto, on a letter of the petitioner dated 18th January, 2024, the HRA was stopped by the authority concerned on and from February, 2024. However, 2 realising her mistake, the petitioner submitted another letter before the concerned authority on 14th July, 2025 for releasing her HRA from the month of February, 2024. However, the same was not released. Hence, this writ petition. 4. Mr. K.M. Hossain, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the HRA of the petitioner has been withheld by the authority concerned on the ground of employment of the petitioner’s husband in a private organisation. However, such ground is not sustainable in view of proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Court. To buttress his contention, he relies on the decisions of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in Mousumi Biswas & Anr. versus State of West Bengal and Ors. (In Re: WPA 1389 of 2018) along with other batch of writ petitions and Payel Banerjee versus State of West Bengal & Ors. (n Re: WPA 519 of 2023). He seeks for release of the current HRA as well as arrear HRA together with other consequential reliefs. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, learned Advocate representing State-respondents submits that the HRA of the petitioner has been withheld on the application of the petitioner. It is not a suo moto action of the State-respondents which has culminated into the grievance of non-payment of HRA. Further, if this Court is of the view that arrears be granted to the 3 petitioner, in such event the petitioner is not entitled to interest as she herself prayed for stopping of HRA. 6. Mr. Hossain, learned advocate for the petitioner does not press for interest on arrears. 7. Upon hearing the learned advocates for respective parties, the only issue is whether the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is entitled to HRA or not. 8. In a similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mousumi Biswas (supra) observed as hereunder: “48. Therefore, to summarize the key takeaways of the findings of the Court, the same is stated as follows: a) The Audit Memo dated November 16, 2017 and Memo No. 2554/G-SE dated December 28, 2017 are held to have been issued without authority of law and is set aside on the grounds of being issued on manifestly irrelevant considerations and being arbitrary/discriminatory, in effect as per the law laid down in Subhasis Negel (supra). b) Pertaining to the State's access to limited pool of resources which necessitated this purported rejig of policy in the first place, such argument stands self-demolished for the reason that employees of State aided colleges and universities are getting the full benefits of drawal of HRA, notwithstanding that their spouses might be engaged in private employment. With a lack of a certain legitimate objective being met by the State, this therefore, becomes a clear case of unreasonable classification and hence is violative of the tenets of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. c) Notwithstanding the unreasonable classification which was carried out in the case of the petitioners which is patently violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, no technical or expert findings or relevant factors had been furnished by the State Respondents to justify the need for the alleged modification of such policy concerning the drawal of HRA, by the petitioners. There is no demonstration as to the extent of fiscal prudence sought to be achieved by the State by purportedly 4 bringing into consideration the HRA of the spouses (engaged in private employment) of those employees who are serving in non- Government/Aided/Sponsored educational institutions, to trigger the common ceiling under the ROPA Memorandum of 2009 and thereby specifying the quantum of funds saved, by the public exchequer. Therefore, such an irregular policy decision merits an interference of this Court as per the principles laid down in Subhasis Negel (supra) and Federation of Railway Officers Association (supra). d) The impugned, clarificatory Corrigendum dated December 27, 2018 read with the Finance Department Memo No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9, 2012 is applicable in the matters of grant of HRA to a state government employee, who are governed by the altogether separate West Bengal Service (ROPA) Rules, 2009 issued vide Memo No. 1691-F dated February 23, 2009 and for the self- same reason, it is inapplicable to the category of employees employed in non-government sponsored institutions, who are governed by the ROPA Memorandum of 2009 for Non- Governmental Educational Institutions, issued by Memo. 46-SE(B) dated February 27, 2009. e) The impugned, clarificatory corrigendum dated December 27, 2018 (which was issued post the initiation of the present litigation) in so far as it is inconsistent by including within its ambit employees who are serving in non- Government/Aided/Sponsored educational institutions is liable to be struck down for being violative of the Finance Department Memo No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9, 2012. The impugned, clarificatory corrigendum could not have risen above its source and is accordingly set aside to such degree of inconsistency as aforesaid. 49. In view thereof, the State Respondents are hereby directed to ensure complete conformity in the payment of HRA which is payable to the petitioners in accordance with the ceiling envisaged in the ROPA Memorandum of 2009 which is applicable to them along with any connected memos, that maybe applicable. If in any case, the payment of such HRA has been stopped in pursuance of the Audit Memo dated November 16, 2017, Finance Department Memo No. 5839-F(P) dated July 9, 2012, and Memo No. 2554/G-SE dated December 28, 2017 or other similar memos that have been issued by the various District Inspectors of Schools (S.E) across the State of West Bengal, the arrears of the same must be paid to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of this judgment.” 5 9. In Payel Banerjee (supra), the coordinate Bench considering the judgment of Mousumi Biswas (supra) has also passed orders for release of HRA in similar circumstances. 10. In line with the aforesaid decisions, this Court directs the State to first release HRA benefits to the petitioner in terms of the applicable rules, together with complete arrears till date. Any recoveries already made, shall be refunded to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from date. The petitioner shall continue to receive HRA as per existing rules. 11. The school authority/Sub-Inspector of Schools, Jagacha Circle, Howrah shall forthwith send appropriate requisition/bills and/or calculations to the District Primary School Council, Howrah, who shall release payment. Payment shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 12. It is informed by the learned advocates that appeal being MAT 1023 of 2021 against the judgment of Mousumi Biswas (supra) has been dismissed for default on 4th December, 2025. There is no such application filed for restoration of the appeal as on date. 13. In such backdrop, it is made clear that this order shall abide by the final outcome of the aforementioned appeal, in the event the same is restored and finally disposed of. 6 14. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPA 21501 of 2025 stands disposed of. 15. Learned advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the concerned authority for necessary compliance. 16. Since no affidavits have been called for, the allegation made in the writ petition is deemed to be not admitted. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 18. All connected applications, if any, stand disposed of. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. All concerned parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 21. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on compliance of all necessary legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak, J.)