Can’t give hostel subsidy under employee welfare scheme if school is within prescribed distance: Kerala HC

Kochi: High court has held 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, and not when the parent voluntarily chooses a school that requires hostel accommodation despite being within the prescribed distance.

A division bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and Basant Balaji delivered the ruling while dismissing a petition filed by a postal department employee challenging a central administrative tribunal order that had denied him the benefit of hostel subsidy for his child.

The petitioner, a native of Thiruvananthapuram and an employee of the postal department, had 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 or institution to be located more than 50km from the employee’s residence. Since Sainik School, Kazhakkoottam, is situated within 50km of the petitioner’s residence, he was found ineligible for the subsidy.

Earlier, the tribunal had issued an order in favour 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.

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, HC 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 enrol their children in a particular school with specific requirements, including compulsory hostel residence. Accordingly, HC dismissed the petition.