No government hostel subsidy for this Kerala Sainik School student, says court. Here’s why

The Kerala High Court said the Children’s Education Allowance Scheme for postal department employees could only be availed of when the hostel stay is necessitated by distance, not by the parents’ personal choice of a school.

Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji observed that the scheme is a welfare measure to benefit employees and falls within the policy realm of the competent authority.

School within 50 km radius

• The petitioner said his child was admitted to Sainik School, Kazhakkoottam, Kerala, which mandates that all students be admitted to its hostel.
• Since the admission to the hostel was mandatory, he claimed to be entitled to the ‘hostel subsidy’ for his child, even though the said school was less than 50 kilometre from his residence in Thiruvananthapuram.
• When his claim was not accepted by the respondents, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), and the tribunal allowed his plea.
• Later, the Kerala High Court set aside the aforementioned order, sending back the matter to the tribunal for reconsideration. This time, the tribunal rejected it.
• Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner challenged it before the Kerala High Court.

Scheme in question

The Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, had brought out a “Children Education Allowance Scheme” in favour of the Department of Posts. The scheme was allowed to be claimed by an employee to facilitate their ward’s education, including tuition fees, admission fees, laboratory fees, special fees, etc.

It also includes a provision for ‘hostel subsidy’, which is the amount spent by an employee for the purpose of accommodating his or her children (up to a maximum of two) in a hostel, to a limit of Rs 3,000 each.

“Hostel subsidy” implies expenses incurred by the employee to keep his/her children in the hostel of a residential school/ institution located beyond a distance of 50 kilometre from his/her residence.

‘Can’t seek modification’

• The Kerala High Court observed that the scheme is a welfare measure to benefit employees and falls within the policy realm of the competent authority. It was not in the court’s ambit to interfere with or substitute its terms in any manner.
• The court held that the scheme could either be accepted or rejected by the employee, and he cannot seek modification in its terms on their own interpretation, nor do they have the authority to expand the scheme or suggest better terms for substitution.
• The court highlighted that the scheme applies in cases where parents are compelled to use hostel facilities due to the distance.
• Agreeing with the tribunal’s order, the Kerala High Court said Sainik Schools are not the only schools that demand compulsory boarding; various other private schools may have similar rules, but that does not mean they will be covered under the scheme.
• Stating that the terms of the scheme could not be tweaked because of employees’ personal choice to place their children in schools with mandatory boarding facilities, the court held that the scheme was intended for parents where hostel accommodation becomes necessary due to unavoidable reasons.

Meant for employee’s welfare

Godwin Joseph, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the purpose behind the grant of ‘hostel subsidy’ to an employee of the Department of Posts is to ensure that the best education for his/her child is facilitated.

He argued that the subsidy should be made available to every employee whose child has to stay in a hostel, whether because of the distance from the residence or the school’s requirements.

He contended that since ‘Sainik School’ mandatorily places students in boarding, it becomes compulsory for parents to pay hostel fees, and the subsidy scheme is there for the welfare of employees, so the scheme should be interpreted broadly, letting the employee avail it even if the school is within 50 km distance.

He argued that the tribunal had failed to understand the scheme and its purpose properly and had denied his claim.

‘Petitioner’s own choice’

On the other hand, K R Rajkumar, counsel for the state, contended that the scheme was intended to offset the burden of a parent who has to leave their child in a hostel that is 50 km or more away.

He argued that the “hostel subsidy” is connected to the distance because having a child travel every day might be impossible, but it is not relevant when it is a parent’s personal choice to send their children to a particular school that has its own requirements.

It was submitted that there were several schools within a 50-km radius, but it was the petitioner’s choice to put his child in a ‘Sanik School’, and it was not forced upon him.