PREM SINGH Vs. PUNJAB MANDI BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.12.1989 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 29.09.1992 (Annexure P-4), whereby, House Rent Allowance (HRA) of the petitioners was sought to be reduced by passing the impugned orders on the ground that the HRA shall be applicable to the place of work and not to the place of posting. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that while posted at Amritsar on their respective posts, petitioners used to go out of station for performing their duties and by evening they used to return to Amritsar because they were staying at Amritsar along with their families. They were being paid HRA, which was admissible to the employees posted in A Class cities. HRA which was being paid to the petitioners was sought to be reduced on the ground that it was payable according to the place of work and not according to the place of posting. Hence this writ petition.

(2.) While issuing notice of motion, operation of the impugned orders Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-4 was stayed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.12.1992. Reply by way of affidavit of the Administrative Officer, Punjab Mandi Board was filed and petitioners filed their replication thereto. Writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order dated 19.05.1993 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners was squarely covered under the policy instructions dated 30.08.1988 (Annexure P-1) and "particularly clause (iv) thereof at page 17 of the paper book. He further submits that the impugned orders Annexure P-2 and Annexure P-4 run counter to the above said policy instructions (Annexure P-1). Respondent authorities proceeded on erroneous approach while passing the impugned orders in violation of the policy instructions (Annexure P-1), which were supposed to be complied with meticulously at the hands of the respondent authorities. He next contended that since petitioners used to go out of Amritsar city only for the purpose of performing their duties and used to come back by evening because they were staying in Amritsar along with their families, the impugned orders were wholly unwarranted and were liable to be set aside. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders, by allowing the present writ petition.