NIRMALA SONWANE Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in the petition is for quashment of order (Annexure P -6), dated 1 -6 -09 and also order (Annexure P -7), dated 29 -6 -09. Vide Annexure P -6, dated 1 -6 -09 petitioner was informed that since she lives with her husband who is receiving the House Rent Allowance, therefore, the House Rent Allowance received by the petitioner is recoverable. Vide Annexure P -7 petitioner was directed to refund the House Rent Allowance with effect from 9 -4 -81.

(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed on the post of LDC. Vide order dated 6 -4 -81 she was promoted on the post of UDC in the year 2003 and was further promoted on the post of Assistant Grade -I. Husband of the petitioner was working as Driver -cum -Mechanic in the Bank Note Press, Dewas and retired with effect from 30 -9 -08 on completing the age of superannuation. Petitioner was granted House Rent allowance as per Govt. Rules with effect from 9 -4 -81, i.e., from the date of initial appointment. Vide order dated 14 -11 -08 an explanation was called from the petitioner as to why the amount paid to the petitioner should not be recovered. Reply was submitted. Vide order dated 1 -6 -09, the order of recovery was passed, against which the present petition has been filed.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents submits that it is true that House Rent Allowance was paid to the petitioner right from 1981 and no recovery was made from the petitioner because it was not in the knowledge of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner is in the service of Bank Note Press, Dewas and is drawing the House Rent Allowance from the Central Govt. and also the petitioner is living with her husband in the same house. It is submitted that petitioner played fraud and was illegally drawing House Rent Allowance from the State Govt. without disclosing the fact that her husband is also drawing the House Rent Allowance from the Bank Note Press, Dewas. It is submitted that since the respondent was not aware and the petitioner illegally took the benefit of House Rent Allowance by playing fraud, therefore, the respondent is having right to recover the amount which is illegally been paid. Learned Counsel placed reliance of Clause 10 (3) of allowances other than pay which reads as under : - <IMG>JUDGEMENT_54_MPHT5_2013p1.jpg</IMG> It is submitted that petition has no merits and the same be dismissed.