SMT. CHANDER PRABHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Are the petitioners entitled to claim payment of House Rent Allowance in spite of the fact that they are staying with their respective spouses who are being paid the House Rent Allowance by their employers This is the short question that arises for consideration in these six writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the factual position as appearing in Civil Writ Petition No. 461 of 1988. It may be briefly noticed.

(2.) The 14 petitioners are working as teachers. They are posted in different Government Schools. Their husbands are Central Government employees. Neither the petitioners nor their husbands have been allotted any Government accommodation. However, it is the admitted position that they (the husbands) are being paid House Rent Allowance by their respective employers. Even the petitioners had been drawing a similar allowance. On April 13, 1987, the Block Education Officer addressed a communication to one of the petitioners pointing out that an audit objection has been raised regarding the payment of House Rent Allowance to her and it has been pointed out that an excess amount of Rs. 6,710/- paid during the period from August 1, 1972 to January 1985 is recoverable. Accordingly, the said petitioner was directed to deposit the amount in the treasury. A copy of this communication has been produced as Annexure P.4 with the writ petition. It has been averred that similar letters have been received by all the petitioners as well. The petitioners challenge this action of the respondents on a two-fold basis. Firstly, it has been alleged that the order of recovery could not have been passed without the grant of a due and reasonable opportunity. Secondly, it is claimed that since both the petitioners and their respective husbands are serving different employers, they are entitled to receive the House Rent Allowance irrespective of the fact whether or not any payment is being made by the petitioners. On this basis, it is claimed that the communication dated April 13, 1987 be quashed and the respondents be directed to allow the payment of House Rent Allowance to the petitioners.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It has been pointed out that one of the petitioners viz. Smt. Harmohinder Chanchal who is petitioner No. 14 in this case had filed Civil Suit No. 205 on September 26, 1981 in the Court of Sub Judge 1st Class, Amritsar. In this suit, she had challenged the order dated January 5, 1979 by which the Circle Education Officer, Jalandhar had withheld the payment of the House Rent Allowance on the ground that her husband who was an employee of the Central Government, was being paid such an allowance. It was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the House Rent Allowance for the period during which her husband had drawn the allowance. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. She had filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment dated January 19, 1985. The petitioner did not disclose this fact in the writ petition. Still further, it has been pointed out that under the instructions issued by the Government vide letters dated June 15, 1970 and April 10, 1972, the House Rent Allowance is admissible only to one of the two spouses and not to both. Since the petitioner had been drawing House Rent Allowance in spite of the fact that she was not entitled to it, the auditors had raised an objection. Thereupon she was asked to refund the amount which she had already drawn. It has been further pointed out that the House Rent Allowance is admissible to both the spouses if they are "posted at different stations and living in different houses..." Since this is not so and the petitioner and her husband are working at the same station and sharing common accommodation, she is not entitled to the payment of any House Rent Allowance. In this situation, it is claimed that there is no merit in this writ petition.