IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 3.7.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.27691 of 2006 (T) O.A.No.2056 of 1996 1. Krishna Chetty 2. G.Josehin Isebella 3. P.Vijayal 4. C.Karunakaran 5. R.Indirani 6. S.P.Aswath Narayana 7. N.Jayammal 8. N.Jayaraman 9. M.Venkatesan .. Petitioners vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary Finance (Pay cell) Department Fort St.George, Madras-9 2. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu Anna Salai, Madras 3. The Deputy Director of Health Services Krishnagiri .. Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned order of recovery passed by the third respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.4115/A2/94, dated 2.2.1996 quash the same so far as the petitioners are concerned only. For petitioner : Mr.S.M.Subramaniam For Respondents : Mr.T.Sreenivasan Government Advocate O R D E R
It is submitted that the petitioners have been employed in various capacities, under the control of the third respondent, at Krishnagiri. Krishnagiri is a Municipal Area classified as Grade-III for the purpose of House Rent Allowance. The Government of Tamil Nadu had passed G.O.Ms.No.1167, Finance (Allowance-II), dated 28.8.1974. It has been stated in the said Government Order that, since a large number of District Offices are still functioning at Krishnagiri, the staff working in the various offices at Krishnagiri are permitted to draw the house rent allowance at 8% of their pay which is permissible for Grade-II. Thus, Krishnagiri was designated as Grade-II for the purpose of house rent allowance.
2. It has also been stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed G.O.Ms.No.772, Finance (Pay Cell), dated 22.9.1986. The said Government order was passed with the recommendations of the ‘One Man Committee’ enlarging the scope and upgradation of certain places for eligibility for house rent allowance. In the said Government order, it was stated that the places around the Grade-II Towns at a distance not exceeding 8 kms. from the town limits, should be taken for giving house rent allowance as admissible at Grade-II places and if the radius of 8 kms. falls within a part of the panchayat union, the entire panchayat union shall be taken for the purpose of giving house rent allowance as admissible to Grade-II places.
3. As per the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.772, the Collector of Dharmapuri District had passed an order, dated 6.8.1987, instructing the offices of Kaveripattinam panchayat union area to draw the increased rate of house rent allowance of Grade-II municipal area of Krishnagiri Municipality. As per the instructions of the District Collector increased rate of house rent allowance was paid to the offices situated in Kaveripattinam panchayat union area.
4. It has been further stated that Krishnagiri was classified in G.O.Ms.No.1209, Finance, dated 19.11.1990. Thus, there was a procedural delay on the part of the Government to declare Krishnagiri as Grade-II place for the purpose of house rent allowance. In such circumstances, though the second respondent had raised the audit objections regarding the payment of house rent allowance during the year 1991-1992, the impugned order of recovery has been passed by the third respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.4115/A2/94, dated 22.2.1996, after a lapse of five years.
5. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 22.2.1996, has been passed without prior notice having been given to the petitioners. No opportunity was granted to the petitioners to put forth their cases before the order of recovery was passed by the third respondent. In accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1167, Finance (Allowances-II) Department, dated 28.8.1974, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the staff working in the various Government Offices at Krishnagiri were permitted to draw the house rent allowance at 8% of their pay which was permissible for Grade-II places. The Government had also passed G.O.Ms.No.772, Finance (Pay Cell), dated 22.8.1986, with the recommendations of the ‘One Man Committee’ enlarging the scope and upgradation of certain places for eligibility for house rent allowance. Based on the said order, the Collector of Dharmapuri District had passed an order, dated 6.8.1987, instructing the offices of Kaveripattinam panchayat union area to draw the increased rate of house rent allowance of Grade-II municipal area of Krishnagiri Municipality. As per the instructions of the District Collector, increased rate of house rent allowance was paid to the offices situated in Kaveripattinam panchayat union. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the third respondent to recover the amounts paid as house rent allowance is arbitrary and illegal and void.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had neither placed the records, relating to the matter, before this Court nor has he shown sufficient cause or reason to sustain the impugned order passed by the third respondent for recovering the house rent allowance paid to them. No proper reasons are shown to have been existing for the third respondent to pass the impugned order, dated 22.2.1996, to recover the house rent allowance paid to the petitioners. It is seen from the the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.772, dated 22.8.1986, that the Collector of Dharmapuri District, had passed an order, dated 6.8.1987, instructing the offices of Kaveripattinam panchayat union area to draw the increased rate of house rent allowance of Grade-II municipal area of Krishnagiri Municipality. It is only based on such instructions of the District Collector, Dharmapuri District, increased rate of house rent allowance had been paid to the offices situated in Kaveripattinam panchayat union area. It is also seen that there has been a procedural delay on the part of the Government to declare Krishnagiri as Grade-II place for the purpose of house rent allowance as it has been so classified only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1209, Finance, dated 19.11.1990. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be made liable for their increased rate of house rent allowance paid to them. Further, there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioners based on which such payments have been made. By an interim order passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal the impugned order had been stayed and the said order has been in force till date. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 22.2.1996, is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
lan
To:
1. The Secretary
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Finance (Pay cell) Department
Fort St.George, Madras-9
2. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu
Anna Salai, Madras
3. The Deputy Director of Health Services
Krishnagiri