^ uTflu -nim ^- CHHATrT^AISM i W P CORAW ; Honbie Shri SA.NAYAK, Chtef Jus-nce & ^ Hon'ble Shri Ditip RaosAeb De*mu!<h, .juage •-> tnte of w.P., through ms Secretary, (Jcnoo' Education), Vd'ahh ®iava",Bhopc'. b-ector. Publ'c Instructions, W.P. Th?» Rhooa! ^^ ojr.ector, PiMic Instructions, Educoti'^ri f\^ ^, 5^., ^ .beoutv' birector, Publ.c Instruct.ons, Educmion, uisn. bura. R'ock Education Officer, Durg. \.'o: .-^.^*> JSK- ^,ii'4"'" wp' ..tffil? ncconKT'CMTS A^.^-. nyui Q. o. 0 ff^ yahij Ram Sahu. 5/0 Bhawar Shgh 5o-iu, aaed 51 "ears. . , , irwdrd Kumar wArA, S/0 Birendra .01 Mishro aged 37 years. '^"Wa"-Whim, 0/0 5bri Anthony J»hn, aaed of years. .:'". ^.'^-...--f A—.—-I W/n Shri Sant Smt. Ssraswati Agrawa;, w/- -.". —•• ^,,.,3,, Aarawal, "ged 40 years. Smt. Awa ftana, 8/0 Shri R.S.Kma, <Mea -»o Kikumar Viahwakarma, S/0 Shankarla! y^h^skcxrn^i, o.^^d 39 ye^'s- toiiash Kumar 5/0 Shri T.R.Banwas- agea ^<: y^.a^^. ...._. /* i . ( '-K .—..-to.-.-hc";; of Midd'e/Primary Schoo's, Pi.te^! Ty-sit & Dis+r'ct Ourg (M.P.l Manohar Prasad Sharma, 5/0 Shr, Aomnam Shc-ma, 56 years. fthanwwr Sinqh Thakur, S/0 Su»<haroo Rcm, Thakur, aged 4U years. ^ ^^ Rajesh Mfl-oo, S/0 Amritla! Maru, aged ss vears. &nt. 5a»!a Shurma, W/0 Shridhcr Diwan. l^. vv aaed 35 yecrs. Smt. LaSrta bawonym, W/0 Pradip wrw biwanaan > aged 27 years. ^.-i Roratu'Ram Yadav S/0 Bhutauram Yadav ^ ^!0 vsa^^* "~- <~'"^ jf--~^-- ^^:i^;'-;:'-i\^"' ^ .'^:^: •3E,« -:.. ..i ! • 'i :i- i!? £-• /!SII Teachers, Pnmary School Potjya, Tdisil iS Ofstffctt>iyg(M;P.3 14. X.t-.Oewahgon, S/Q D.R.Deviwngan, aged 55 :yeors. • ; • : , Y, ' ;.' 15. Srat. Rekha fcrt'iyar, W/0 Arvind Kumar Itotiyar aged 37years; 16. Snt. fihariiikafa, 5ofou, W/OSurencfra Chjbey., dged^S years; 17. 9iri Jayarqm Sahu S/0 Budhram Sahu aged 39'years..•,.,.:., ^. ,' ; : :,,: ..,• :V; . 18. fa. Vicfyawti Sahu,D/0 BharatBhusan Sahu, agec(37ysars. All •teachers Middte Schoot Po-tiyd, Tohsil & District t5urg (te.P.) 19. Smt. (Oioriwharin Sahu W/Q^.... aged 59 •years. ^ , • . : ^ •. • • ! 20.5mf.Radhabeviyg(ju,aged36Ye<ir.s. 21. 5mt. Dhaneshtwri Chandrokar. y<ged 37years. 22. Smt. Iharna AAaseeh, Aged 36 yeurs. Teachens 6ir!s Prjmar/ School, Bersi, Talisit & OJStrJdsDurg^J'.) ^. 5mt. Meri t>tfl:>e^ W/0 Siri ^icinshyurt ^ :i t>ubey,agef!i33'yews. ' ,' ^.'•:.^ ..•:'l^' 24. 9iri Dwwil®5ahu 5/0 Vishni.1 Rotm.Sdiu ag^ci "' ;,.., .SSyeoirs;:, ^.•; . : •,,' .-l',:! .'.^,?1' 25. 5mt. ^kha htodypkar Vi^ ft.K. Ktencfeirkat-; <s^d4lyeis{'s. • ' :; : ':::' ;''u::; 26. Smt/ Pu;yhaltrto Joiswol W/0 K.S.3'aiswat» agsd2Syews. ^ .: .- : , 1'".." •:> .li Te<^ersPrim<r^ 5chool,Bot^ibhataTA^&M^ ,.:: VMrgW'f^ •• • ^. . : :J'1::''.? ,^| 27. Shri Goverdhan Singh Harmukh, Sfljti Shef'singh Hcir'mukh, dged 61 ysws, Retir^l 1 HM. Ri^oon. C/'Oi Primwy Schoo)[ ^PuiyeBwilt ^7<A.:&'t>istrict:&u(^.(MPJl.:',';:,,^^ 28. Smf. Vij^laxmi 'TiwM'i, W/Q Lcrte| ^>ivy<iTd ;Tiwnri~o^SI®3'yea»'s.'.'A: ^ ^T:::,' ^, •;•:'. iiV^^ 29. Smt. Aniina ^arma, W/0 tete j Ra,|kuij[sc(i*| 30. ^n 'nn^i'r^^Ss^ S/0 St^^ "yc^w aged32^yews. ^[. :^';;.,1 '.:.;: ::. .;-:,1:: ^',,|' 31. f)med Sirigl?, ;E^w^^im pponslserre^ ^Teaehei^g|^0»;|teuJn!3E)ti.^t^wciH^,^ ^ar$,;r.S.&irtttl6>oe||:] X|^te^ha^^imwy|Sisha ^afu|bia<il,':T<iR^..<S|'&^| OtA^SW.f.) 5M!i l.'I:'''::^- :»a ^KSm T -s- • 32, Kewdt Singh Jaiswal,5/0 T.5. Jaiswal, aged 31 years, P.S. & M.S. Pulgaon, Tah. & Dist. Ourg(M.P.) 33. Thakurram Sahu 5/0 Khamhanal Sahu, aged 34 years. P.5. Pdtiya Tah.A Oist. Durg (M.P.) 34. Pradeep Shpiyastava; 5/0 Jeevoinlal Shrivdstavd,aged 37years, P.5. Pqtiyd,Tah. A t)ist.Durg(»J>3 Shri Vinay Harit, learned Oy. Advoeate Sensrat for the petitioners/Stste. Shri Ajcy Sir-ivastava, Counsel for the re^ondents. ORALORDER • (Pas^d on8.5;20Q6) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK. C.J, | The background facts leadingto filing of this writpe-t-ition are cis follows: The/Block Education Officer, E)ur9, the 5t^ petitioner herein issuedaiiorderon 17.12.1996, markeyasAnnexureP/l.directingthat the emp!oyees workmg at Potiyd, Borsi, l&rtulbod and Pulgolon tore entitled for House Rent Allowance o.t the rate of t5% of thejr Salary w^.f. 1.1.1991. That order wus dbruptly withdrdwn by the petitioHer No.5 by anotherordep dated 24.12.1996; marked us Annexure p/2. The respondents herein, feeling 09grieved by the dbove order dffited 24.12.1996, instituted Original Apptication No.108/97 before jt-tae Administrative Tribunal, Raipur Berich, Raipur (for short .^l+ie Tribunal'). In the O.A., it (fes contended that Annexure R/2^dattey 24.12.1996 is invalid both on merit and atsff for yiolation of ffhe principles of natural justice. Though reaisonable oppor'Kinity |j^3is afforded to the petjtioners, noTeliirnfwas filed b^re 1tie|Tri!i!.i|iBtl- In the cireuraslwice, the Tribunal hayingldppreciated the matedojl^ on record and taking no-te of the fact tliat -the petitioners hsrein elid |iBt adduce any evjdenc& before j'f itolshow that 1the oitler nnadg petitioner No.5 on t7A2,t99Sj»ms illegal;cuid ttlsq on^ the affected' employees wepej riot hsdrd jinl the matter- i^. 'l'': a ^l<- • • ^ . . . .:• e<mce!!ation of ths ppdercldted 17.12.1996 by subsequent ordep dateci 24.12.1996, •She Tribunal allowed -theOrigindl Applicationand quashec! Annexure P/2 dcrted 24.12.1996 imddirected 1+ie petitionerSi'to comply with the order Annexure P/2 and to pay the concerned employees House Rent Atlowance at the rate of 15% of tfae s&lary w.e.f. l.l.t991, Hence, tiiis yrit petition. 2. Although in the course pf the arguments, leamed counset •fpr •rtie petitioners would contend that 1+ie grant of H.R.A. to the employees by the 5 petitioner vida order Annexure P/t dated 17.12.1996 was itlegal, he was not in a position to estabtish that fdct by referring us to emy'Ruleor administrative instructions. We have carefuliy perused the writ petition. The dverments made in the writ petition are as scanty as they coutd be and tfie petitioners have utterly fgilect to lay any foundation ori the basis of which we could possibly opirie thcrt- direction of the 5+h petitioner to pcy WA.A. vide his order dated 17.12.1996 is illegal. Even assuming -that the orcier dtxted 17.12.1996 (Annexure P/l) of the 5th petitioner could no'tj be sustained in Sawu, before canceilingthat order the law requiretfl't^iat the 5th petitioner Aoyld howe 9iven on opportunity the dffaiejtecl employees to have tfieir scy m •Hie matter. Admittedly,that waainot done in the instunt case. In thatviewofthe matter.we find nogpod reason to upset the order macle by the Tribunal impugned in tflis writ petition. , : ; ^ ! ," '. ': • ^ :;'::: , /:1' 'i' 3. The writpetition is, therefore, dismissed. However,thisotjder sha!l not come in the woy the tietitioners, if theythink thsitAnne.^ui'e P/l is invalid, they can tcxte appropriate s-teps in accordimce cnd in the lightofthisorder. ^ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd<- DilipRaosahebDeshmukh Judge 'l:'hU;^Kf lllB :iffl!ltl ::{!a t.::.' tl«