ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the question involved in both these petitions by the same person are identical, they are being decided by this common order.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, pleadings and the documents available on record re referred to W.P.No.12526/2005.

(3.) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager(Accounts) in the respondent/Corporation on 21 -02 -1983. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was enjoying the benefit of house rent allowance , payable by the Corporation. It is also admitted position that petitioner's wife is a Govt. employee and is working as an Assistant Professor in the service of the State Government. It is seen from the record that petitioner's wife has received the benefit of Govt. accommodation or House Rent Allowance and for most of the time both petitioner and his wife were posted in the same place and while being so posted, the petitioner was residing with his wife in the Govt. accommodation provided by the Govt. of M.P. inspite thereof, house rent allowance was paid to the petitioner as per the respondents. However, M.P.Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam Ltd. Bhopal, through its Board of Director have denied to adopt certain circular and decision taken by the State Government and from the return filed by the respondents, it is seen that in the 6th meeting held on 21 -06 -1982, the Board of Director of the Nigam resolved and approved a proposal for payment of additional dearness allowance and other emoluments to the employees as was sanctioned by the Government of M.P. for different categories of employees from time to time. The Corporation also adopted the pattern of pay scales, cadres and posts as prescribed by the State Government and it is said that the decision was taken by the Corporation even for the purpose of adopting the circular and scheme with regard to payment of house rent allowance. In para 5.4 of the return filed in W.P.No.12526/2005(S), it is indicated that the provision for grant of house rent allowance as notified by State Government has been adopted by the Corporation and the circular of the Finance Department dated 15 -07 -1987, 18 -10 -1994 and 01 -07 -1997 have been adopted by the Nigam. It is said that as per policy and circular of the State Government if one of the spouse is a Govt. servant and staying in Govt. accommodation provided by the State Government or is in receipt of HRA, the other person or the spouse is not entitled to house rent allowance. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents invites my attention to the circular P -4 dated 01 -07 -1997 and para -4 thereof is to say that the petitioner is entitled to house rent allowance and the allowance being illegally granted to the petitioner, it is said that the same is being recovered.