The Kerala High Court has clarified that hostel subsidy under an employee welfare scheme is available only when a child is required to stay in a hostel because the school is located beyond the prescribed distance from the employee's residence. The benefit is not applicable when a parent voluntarily chooses a school that necessitates hostel accommodation, even if the school is within the prescribed distance.
Division Bench Ruling
A division bench comprising Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji delivered this ruling while dismissing a petition filed by a postal department employee. The employee had challenged a central administrative tribunal order that denied him the hostel subsidy for his child.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, a native of Thiruvananthapuram and an employee of the postal department, claimed hostel subsidy for his child under the Department of Personnel and Training's Children's Education Allowance Scheme. His child is currently studying at Sainik School, Kazhakkoottam. The authorities rejected the claim on the grounds that the scheme requires the hostel of a residential school to be located more than 50 km from the employee's residence. Since Sainik School, Kazhakkoottam, is situated within 50 km of the petitioner's residence, he was found ineligible for the subsidy.
Previous Proceedings
Earlier, the tribunal had issued an order in favor of the petitioner. The authorities challenged that order before a single bench, which quashed the tribunal's decision and directed it to reconsider the matter. Upon reconsideration, the tribunal dismissed the petitioner's claim, prompting him to approach the division bench.
Court's Observations
While considering the petition, the division bench observed that the scheme is a welfare measure intended to benefit employees. However, as it falls within the policy domain of the competent authority, the High Court cannot substitute its own interpretation or alter its terms. The court further observed that hostel subsidy is intended solely to alleviate the financial burden on parents who are compelled, owing to employment-related circumstances, to admit their children to schools located far from their place of residence, thereby necessitating hostel accommodation. The benefit cannot be extended to situations where parents choose to enroll their children in a particular school with specific requirements, including compulsory hostel residence. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
