BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Multipurpose Health Worker, is aggrieved by the order dated November 20, 1994 by which it has been held that he is ''not entitled to the rent free accommodation'' and a direction for the recovery of house rent at the rate of 5% of his pay has been given. This decision has been given by the Department on a representation submitted by the petitioner which was ordered to be decided within two months by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated September 21, 1994 in Civil Writ Petition No. 13383 of 1994. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was initially recruited as a Basic Health Works in the Health Department. In January, 1985, the Government of Haryana promulgated the Services Rules governing the condition of service of various categories of Class III employees. By Rule 9, the nomenclature of posts of Basic Health Workers, Surveillance Workers, Sanitary Supervisors, Vaccinators, Family Planning Field Workers, B.C.G. Technicians, T.B. Multipurpose Workers and Superior Field Workers, was changed and all these employees were designated as Multipurpose Health Workers (Male). Accordingly, the petitioner came in the cadre of Multipurpose Health Workers (Male). All the persons holding different categories of posts were brought on a common seniority list and placed in an identical scale of pay. On November 27, 1986, the Government framed Rules under Article 309 so as to amend the provisions of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part II in so far as these were applicable to the State of Haryana. It was inter alia provided that rent free accommodation or house rent allowance at the rate of 10% of the pay or the rent paid whichever is less, shall be admissible to the Family Welfare Extension Educators and Family Welfare Field Workers. In other words, out of the common cadre of Multipurpose Health Workers, the persons belonging to the categories of Family Welfare Extension Educators and Family Welfare Field Workers were held entitled to rent free accommodation.

(3.) The petitioner who was posted at the Community Health Centre, Pehowa in District Kurukshetra, was allotted accommodation at Bodhni. He was not being charged any rent for the accommodation. The accounts of the Department for the period from January, 1993 to December, 1993 were audited. The auditors pointed out that the petitioner was not entitled to rent free accommodation and as such, the rent due from him ought to be recovered. On coming to know of this objection, the petitioner made a representation dated May 30, 1994. He followed it up by filing a petition in this Court. This petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated September 21, 1994. It was directed that the representation be decided within two months by passing a speaking order and no deduction from the salary of the petitioner should be made in the meantime. Vide order dated November 20, 1994, the representation was rejected. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner avers that ''the Government of Haryana letter dated 27.11.86 on the basis of which the audit report and the order dated 20.11.94 have been passed is illegal on the face of it and non-est in the eye of law because on the date of (the) issuance of this letter i.e. 27.11.86 there existed no cadre of Family Welfare Field Workers etc. as these cadres were merged in 1985 vide Annexure P. 1 and designated as Multipurpose Health Workers. Once these cadres have been merged, joint pay scale given and a joint seniority list drawn and made effective, no discrimination regarding the rent free accommodation can be made on the basis of their previous cadres prior to the said merger.'' On this basis, the petitioner prays that ''order dated 27.11.86 passed by the Government of Haryana (Annexure P. 4), audit report dated 10.2.94 (Annexure P. 2) and order dated 20.11.94 (Annexure P. 5) passed by Respondent No. 2'', be quashed.