CW 1824/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.1824/2007 Dr. Ashok Kr. Jaiswal Versus State & (3) Ors. Date of Order ::: 12/12/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Pradeep Asthana, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for State Instant petition has been filed by petitioner for grant of house rent allowance admissible on having not occupied government accommodation; with a further grievance that the respondents improperly deducted ear-marked house rent from his monthly salary from June, 2001. Counsel for petitioner inter-alia submits that while holding post of Veterinary Officer, petitioner was transferred as In-charge Veterinary Hospital, Talera (Bundi), for whom a Government house was not ear-marked, being let out to his predecessor, was not in a worth- living condition; as such was not occupied by him and respondents have committed an error in making deductions towards rent from his salary as alleged of ear-marked house. In their reply, respondents have inter- alia averred that once there being Government accommodation ear-marked for Veterinary Officer In-charge, Veterinary Hospital at Talera CW 1824/07 //2// (Bundi), having been earlier occupied by different Veterinary Officers, predecessors of petitioner, as referred to in para 6 of the reply, which he failed to occupy on one pretext or the others, certain deductions could be made towards its rent from monthly salary of In- charge, Veterinary Hospital, Talera. As regards objection raised by petitioner that there was no electricity connection – in absence of alleged basic amenities, ear-marked house could not have been occupied by him, Government counsel submits that petitioner never made complaint whereof either in regard to basic amenities or otherwise also about house being not in worth living condition; and for the first time, made complaint by submitting his representation in May, 2002 after almost more than one year of his posting at Talera. Having perusal material on record with the assistance of Counsel for parties, I find that facts are not clear as to whether alleged ear-marked house had become available for occupation by petitioner in worth-living condition, and he further raised objection as regards basic amenities being not provided in alleged ear-marked house, apart from complaint of electricity connection being withheld for CW 1824/07 //3// want of payment of outstanding electricity charges for earlier period of his predecessors. All these facts being disputed cannot be resolved in instant petition for want of proper pleadings on record. However it is made clear that petitioner may make fresh representation stating complete facts in details raising his grievance either for grant of house rent allowance admissible on having not occupied ear-marked house, or for deductions allegedly made from his monthly salary qua rent of ear-marked house. In case such a representation is made by him, competent authority may objectively consider the same and pass a speaking order within three months from submission of representation, ibid and still feels aggrieved whereof, petitioner will be free to avail of remedy under law. With these directions (supra), writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.3/1824CW07-1212-Rep.doc