KRISHNA SWAROOP ANANDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. Heard the petitioner in person and Sri Alok Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 10th November, 2000 issued by the Director, Technical Education, U.P., Kanpur directing for stopping payment of house rent allowance to the petitioner with immediate effect and for taking steps for recovery of house rent allowance irregularly paid to the petitioner. A writ of mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents No.2 and 3 not to recover the house rent allowance already paid to the petitioner with further direction to pay him the house rent allowance month by month admissible under the law.

(3.) BRIEF facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are; the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics in the Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology (I.E.R.T.), Allahabad on 6th September, 1983. The petitioner's wife Dr. Kaumudi Srivastava joined as Lecturer in Sanskriti in the Rajashri Tandon Mahila Mahavidyalaya on 31st March, 1989. Both the institutions were receiving Government aid. Both the petitioners were receiving house rent allowance from their respective institutions till January, 1996 when the house rent allowance of petitioner's wife was stopped by the Principal of Rajashri Tandon Mahila Mahavidyalaya on the ground that she is not entitled to receive the same since her husband is already receiving the house rent allowance. The petitioner gave in writing that the house rent allowance to the petitioner be not paid and the house rent allowance to the petitioner's wife be restored with effect from March, 1996 The house rent allowance of the petitioner was stopped and that of his wife was restored with effect from March, 1996. The petitioner submitted a representation on 17th February, 1997 to the Director, I.E.R.T. seeking payment of house rent allowance as well as arrears of house rent allowance on the strength of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Maya Rani Srivastava vs. The Director (Higher Education), U.P., Allahabad and others reported in 1996(3) E.S.C. 474 (All.). The petitioner submitted reminders. The Director, I.E.R.T. by order dated 5th September, 1997 directed for payment of house rent allowance to the petitioner in pursuance of which the Joint Director, Technical Education, U.P. (East Zone), Varanasi started payment of house rent allowance to the petitioner from October, 1997. The petitioner thereafter submitted another representation for payment of arrears of house rent allowance from March, 1996 to September, 1997. On such representation of the petitioner, the Director, Technical Education wrote to the State Government seeking appropriate direction for stopping the house rent allowance of the petitioner. In the reference letter dated 11th July, 2000 of the Director, Technical Education it was stated that when husband and wife both are residing in the same city and in the same house, both are not entitled for house rent allowance and the judgment of this Court in Dr. Maya Rani's case (supra) cannot be applied in all matters. The State Government wrote a letter on 21st October, 2000 to the Director, Technical Education after receiving which letter, the Director, Technical Education issued an order dated 10th November, 2000 for stopping the payment of house rent allowance to the petitioner and for taking steps for recovery of irregularly paid house rent allowance to the petitioner and further to submit a report of responsible official in that regard. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the aforesaid order.