ANIL M. VAIDYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common questions arise for consideration in both these appeals, they are considered simultaneously.

(2.) THE short facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 17 of 2010 are that the original petitioners - appellants herein were working in the urban agglomeration of Vadodara, viz. Padra and Bajwa. Similar is the fact situation in the case of original petitioners of Letters Patent Appeal No. 960 of 2010. House Rent Allowance (for short 'H.R.A.') and City Compensatory Allowance (for short 'C.L.A.') were being paid to them as per the Government Resolution dated 29th May 1981 from time to time at par with the Government employees working in the city of Vadodara. Such arrangement continued upto the year 2000 -01. However, in the year 2002, vide order dated 28th June 2002, a decision was taken by the Government that after 28th February 1985 such benefits were not available on account of recommendation of Third Pay Commission as there was reclassification of the cities vide Government Resolution dated 18th April 1983, and Padra was not included, and therefore, the decision was taken to recover the amount of H.R.A./C.L.A. which were already paid to the petitioners. All the original petitioners - appellants herein were not communicated with the decision, but they were orally conveyed that the difference amount of H.R.A./C.L.A. already paid to them is to be recovered. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners preferred respective Special Civil Applications. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order found that as the amount was paid in excess, the same can be recovered. The learned Single Judge also referred to the earlier decision in Special Civil Application No. 7347 of 1997 decided vide order dated 17th August 1999 and found that the amount of overdue payment of H.R.A./C.L.A. could be recovered in thirty installments, and the learned Single Judge further found that the recovery cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, and the learned Single Judge, therefore, dismissed the petition. It is under these circumstances, these appeals.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that similar aspects came up for consideration before another learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 235 of 2003, and vide order dated 2nd December 2011, learned Single Judge found that recovery of the amount after a period of twenty years cannot be sustained, and by relying upon a decision of the Apex court in case of Syed Abdul Qadir and others v. State of Bihar and others, reported at : (2009) 3 SCC 475, the learned Single Judge quashed the order for recovery. It was submitted that the Letters Patent Appeal against the very decision of the learned Single Judge being Letters Patent Appeal No. 329 of 2014 has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21st March 2014, and the Division Bench has concurred with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, it was submitted that since the fact situation in the present appeal is similar, the appeal be allowed.