IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 1984 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 17, 2009 SRI KRISHAN AND ORS. ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. Poonam, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. YK Sharma, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Petitioners, 36 in number, have filed this Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering the amount from the petitioners which has been paid against House Rent Allowance and to restore the payment of House Rent Allowance that was being paid earlier. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, states that the petitioners do not press for the second relief i.e. to restore the payment of Civil Writ Petition No. 1984 of 1989 2 House Rent Allowance that was being given earlier. So far the second claim is concerned, it has been contended that the petitioners have been working as Teachers in Government School, Bargari, which is within the periphery of 8 kilometers from the limits of Municipal Committee, Jaitu. In the year 1973, the Punjab Government decided to grant the benefit of House Rent Allowance to all the Government employees whose place of duty fell within 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the qualifying limit of cities eligible for House Rent Allowance. Subsequently, vide instructions dated 12.7.1973, it was clarified that if a particular village fell within 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the periphery of a City eligible for House Rent Allowance, then, whole of the village was to be included within the limits of 5 miles (8 kilometers). Vide order dated 11.4.1975, the Deputy Commissioners of the respective Districts, in their capacity as Collectors, were authorized to issue certificates regarding distance for the grant of House Rent Allowance. The petitioners were getting House Rent Allowance in view of Government instructions, based on Annexure P-1, a certificate issued by the office of Collector, Faridkot, which specified “Certified that village Bargari of this district falls within 8 Kilometers by Road/Track from the qualifying limits of Municipal Committee Jaitu as verified by the Executive Engineer Consl. P.W.D. B & R Faridkot”. The Certificate has been endorsed on 10.1.1983. For the purposes of the only prayer made on behalf of the petitioners, other facts are not required to be given. The petitioners apprehend that the House Rent Allowance Civil Writ Petition No. 1984 of 1989 3 already given to them would be recovered on the premise that the distance had been wrongly calculated. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, while drawing the attention of the court towards para-10 of the written statement, has pointed out that no recovery of House Rent Allowance has been initiated. Recovery would be started only after giving due opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It has, however, been pleaded in the written statement that the certificate that forms the basis of claiming House Rent Allowance was bogus and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the same. This contention has been made on the basis of letter dated 25.8.1987 (Annexure R-1). In view of the fact that the respondents have taken the stand that the recovery has not been initiated, the petition is clearly premature and is, accordingly, disposed of. However, if the respondents choose to initiate proceedings for recovery, show cause notice giving detailed reasons would be issued to the petitioners and the issue would be considered by the respondents in terms of judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in CWP 2799 of 2008 decided on 22.5.2009 (Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others). July 17, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?