(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 3rd June, 1992 passed by the learned trial Judge dismissing the writ application. The question involved in the writ application was whether the writ petitioners who occupy Government accommodation were entitled to house rent allowance or not. The contentions of the writ petitioners were that they were to pay house rent in respect of the accommodation occupied by them and they were entitled to house rent allowances. It is not in dispute that prior to issue of Notification No. 432F dated 12th Jan., 1990 issued by the Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of West Bengal, in connection with the West Bengal Government Service (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rule, 1990 all the Government employees were equally entitled to and were getting house rent allowances. It is stated that before 1st Feb., 1977 employees living in accommodation namely, flats/quarters and/or premises provided by the State Government were required to pay house rent either at a fixed standard rate or on percentage of pay basis by option and those employees were not allowed to draw house rent allowance. It is stated that the other two categories of employees living in their own house or in private rented house were allowed to draw house rent allowance at the rate of 10% of basic pay subject to certain terms and conditions. But in case of employees living in Government accommodations they were asked to exercise option either to pay the assessed rent that may be fixed by the Government in accordance with the accepted principles pies and draw the admissible house rent allowances or to pay a fixed percentage of their salary as rent and forego the house rent allowances. By memorandum dated 2nd May, 1984 the Government of West Bengal issued the following rules:-
(2.) The matter has been further reviewed by the Government and the Governor has been pleased to decide, in super-session of para 6 of Memorandum No. 1925-F, dated 21.10.1984 as amended, and Memorandum No. 46-F, dated 3.1.1975, as follows:-
(3.) The only question involved in this case is whether the withholding of the housing rent allowances to the employees who are occupying flats in Government Housing Estates on payment of rent and as a licensee is discriminatory or not. Originally the house rent allowance was given to all categories of Government employees at a fixed rate. Subsequently, it was decided to give house rent allowances to the employees of the State Government who are not occupying any tenanted but owners of their respective premises for which they have not to pay any rent. The house rent allowances were given to the employees of the State Government who are tenant and pay rents to their respective landlords but the exception was made to the employees of the State Government who are occupying the housing flats owned by the Govt. for which they are also paying rents. It is now well established that while article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be founded namely (a) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (b) that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different basis, namely geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act under consideration. (See Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Justice Tendolkar, AIR 1958 SC 538 and other case laws which this consistent view has been taken by the Supreme Court).