B.SUBBA RAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are seeking direction against the Respondent No.5 to pay house rent allowance to the Petitioners to which they are entitled.

(2.) THE short question therefore which arises for our consideration is whether the Petitioners are entitled to be paid the house rent allowance or not.

(3.) IN the above factual background, Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that although in view of the Government Resolution dated 25th April 1988, the Petitioners were entitled to the H.R.A. at the revised rates as mentioned therein with effect from 1st April 1988, the said Government Resolution was misinterpreted by the Respondent No.5 and their H.R.A. was altogether stopped. It was further submitted that the action on the part of the Respondent was thus totally erroneous, unreasonable, unjust and unlawful and that the Petitioners were thereby prejudicially discriminated vis-a-vis the members of the teaching staff who are not residing in the staff quarters and that because of the said Government Resolution as misinterpreted by the Respondent No.5, the Petitioners were put to double loss of not getting H.R.A. and further compensatory payment on H.R.A. It was lastly submitted by Shri Deshmukh that the Petitioners were in fact getting H.R.A. right from 1968 till it was discontinued and had the Government Resolution dated 25th April 1988 not being issued by the Respondent No.1, the College would have continued to pay to the Petitioners the H.R.A. as before. Thus, the action on the part of the Respondent No.5 is stopping the payment of H.R.A. to the Petitioners and not granting the revised H.R.A. and recovering the same from their salary was totally erroneous and arbitrary.