JOTARA JESINGBHAI RUKHADBHAI Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. Gandhi for the petitioners, Mr. Pranav Dave, learned A.G.P. For respondent No.1, and learned Advocate Mr. Munshaw for respondent No.3.

(2.) THESE matters are notified today along with Special Civil Application No. 9543 of 2000, 3672 of 2002 and 4211 of 2002. In Special Civil Application No. 9543 of 2000, 3672 of 2002 and 4211 of 2002, learned Advocate Ms. Priti Pandya is appearing for the petitioners who has not remained present when the matters were called out. In rest of the matters, learned Advocate Mr. N.V.Gandhi is present and he has made his submissions in all the above matters wherein he is appearing for the petitioners. Since the questions of law and fact are similar in all these Special Civil Application No. 2530 of 2002, 3085 of 2002, 3070 of 2002, 3103 of 2002 and 2988 of 2002, they are heard and decided by this common judgment.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Mr.Gandhi for the petitioners has made various arguments to challenge the resolution impugned in the petitions. However, when learned Advocate Mr.Gandhi was confronted with two reported decisions of this Court, one is in the case of NR Parikh & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2002(2) GLH page 657 and the other one is in the case of K.B. Zala versus State of Gujarat, reported in 2003(1) GLH page 210, learned Advocate Mr.Gandhi has fairly conceded before this Court that the questions raised in these petitions are decided by the above said two decisions of this Court. In the above said two decisions, facts were similar and identical to the facts of the present petitions and the very resolution which is impugned in these petitions was the subject matter of challenge in those cases. It is held in the case of K.B. Zala versus State of Gujarat, reported in 2003(1) GLH page 210 that there is reasonable nexus between the purpose sought to be achieved and the distinction in fixing different rates of House Rent for distinct category of employees cannot therefore be said tobe discriminatory so as to violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the case of NR Parikh & Ors. Versus State of Gujarat & Ors., 2002 (2) GLH 657, it is held that the impugned resolution dated 25.2.2000 cannot be branded as arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner. The said resolution is passed after considering the various facts and circumstances of the case, as pointed out in the reply. On closer scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be said that it is based on sound principle and on rational ground. Simply because the petitioners might have got H.R.A. at a higher rate is no ground for attacking the said resolution and such compensatory allowance can be amended or changed from time to time, looking to the exigency and as per the situation prevailing at the relevant time. Therefore, the issue involved in these petitions is no longer res integra and it is concluded by above referred two decisions. LEARNED Advocate Mr.Gandhi therefore rightly submitted that there is development in so far as inclusion of some areas in Urban Agglomeration of the City of Rajkot pending the petitions and most of the areas where the petitioners are serving have now formed part of the Urban Agglomeration of the Rajkot City and, therefore, now, even otherwise, they are entitled to 15 per cent of their basic salary by way of House Rent Allowance. However, this exercise is left to be done by the concerned respondents and if what learned Advocate Mr.Gandhi for the petitioners says is found to be correct, then, it is needless to say that the petitioners would continue to draw House Rent Allowance accordingly on that basis as per the Government Resolution prevailing presently.