PRINCIPAL Vs. D SARALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EVEN though the matters are listed for hearing miscellaneous petitions, on consent of the learned counsel appearing for both sides, the writ petitions themselves are heard on merits.

(2.) THE present batch of writ petitions have been filed by kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (in short,'kvs').

(3.) RELYING upon the various provisions of the Rules, the tribunal observed as follows: "26. Here I have to see whether the action of the respondents for denying HRA is proper. Admittedly, as per rules, the applicants are not eligible for allotment of quarters. When the applicants are not fulfilling the benefit of residing in quarters they are eligible for HRA. When the respondent has forcibly allotted the quarters the applicants have refused the allotment. Immediately without hearing the applicants, the respondent has issued a circular for recovery of the HRA paid to the applicants from the pay bill June, 2004 which is capricious and against law. 31. The said rules is applicable to the allottees made by the Allotment Committee after calling applications for allotment of quarters. The said rule is not applicable to the present case since there was no procedure followed by the respondents for calling of applications. The applicants did not submit their applications for allotment. Refusal of occupying the quarters only on the basis of the allotment made by the respondents suo motu, hence the said rule 11 is not applicable to the facts of this case. 32. I carefully considered the contentions from the either side and the respondent has not justified in denying HRA. The impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law since there was no notice prior to passing the orders. Since the rules for allotment are not followed while allotting the quarters the denial of HRA is also not proper. I consider the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA. 981 of 2000 and batch is applicable to the facts of this case. Hence the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 33. For the foregoing reasons and the judgment referred above and as per provisions of allotment rules, KVS (Allotment of Residence)Rules, 1998, the impugned action of the respondents is illegal. I accepted the contention taken by the applicants and the respondents have not justified in taking action for denial of HRA. While admitting the case the interim order of recovery was granted. The interim order is made absolute. 34. The OAs. are allowed. No order as to costs. " It is against this order of the Tribunal that the KVS has filed the present writ petitions.