WP(C) 6063/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H N SARMA THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008, THE COURT PASSE D THE FOLLOWING- JUDGMENT (ORAL) This writ petition is directed against an order dated 15.11.206 issued b y the Senior Accounts Officer (Cash) BSNL, by which LPC was issued to the petiti oner wherein amongst other things a recoverable amount of Rs. 45,280.00 on accou nt of medical bill paid to M/s Apolo Hospital, Chennai, for treatment of the pet itioner and double HRA amounting to Rs. 65, 482.00 were shown recoverable from t he petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed under the respondents as TS Clerk in the ye ar 1968. After serving for a considerable period, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Senior Accounts Officer and was posted in the office of the General Manager, Telecom, Itanagar falling under the jurisdiction of the Chief General Manager, NE- II, Telecom Circle, Dimapur, wherein he joined 10.8.2004. After wor king for about 2 years, the petitioner was transferred to Assam Telecom Circle, Guwahati from Itanagar as Chief Accounts Officer and was posted in the office of the General Manager, Telecom, Kamrup, wherein he joined on 26.8.2006. 3. While the petitioner was serving at Itanagar, he suffered from certain h eart ailment in the first week of September, 2004 and took necessary treatment a t GNRC Heart Institute at Guwahati. Although the doctors of GNRC Heart Institute after necessary investigation on the basis of ECG so done upon the petitioner, he was referred to Apollo Hospital Chennai for further investigation. The wife o f the petitioner was also suffering from certain ailment. On being examined by t he Ramkrishna Mission Hospital, Itanagar, she was also referred to Apollo Hospit al, Chennai, on 3.1.2005. the wife of the petitioner was also examined in the GM CH, Guwahati, wherein the doctors advised for checking up outside the State. Acc ordingly, on the basis of the aforesaid advice, the Director of Health Services, Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, approved the case of the petitioner and his wife for under going treatment at Apollo Hospital, Chennai vide order dated 12.1.200 5 and 24.3.2005, respectively. The Senior Accounts Officer (Cash) BSNL. Responde nt No 7, vide letter dated 14.6.2005 wrote to the Deputy General Manager, Credit Cell, Apollo Hospital, Chennai, that the petitioner and his wife have been refe rred to their hospital for medical treatment by the Director of Health Services, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, requested him to allow them for treatment providin g credit facilities and the bills for the purpose were requested to be sent to the office of the GMT/ BSNL/ Itanagar for necessary payment. The petitioner and his wife in terms of the aforesaid recommendation / order went to Apollo hospit al Chennai wherein that were duly treated and necessary bills raised by the hosp ital authority were paid by the department. After transfer of the petitioner to the office of the GMT / BSNL/ Kamrup Telecom, Guwahati, the Chief Accounts offic e, respondent No 6, vide letter dated 15.11.2006 sought for clearance from the p etitioner in respect of his referable treatment outside the State. In the said l etter it is stated that while reviewing his case it was observed that the referr al letter by DHS, Naharlagun for treatment outside Arunachal Pradesh had been gi ven without any prescription slip of any medical officer. Accordingly, he was as ked to provide necessary details about preliminary diagnosis and referral of me dical officer, if any, before the case was recommended by DHS, Naharlagun, faili ng which necessary instruction for recovery of the whole amount of the medical b ill would be issued. The aforesaid letter, as alleged, was not delivered to the petitioner. But he picked up the same from the office and immediately on receipt of the same he submitted his reply on 12.1.2007 enclosing therewith the case su mmary and discharge record of GNRC Hospital, Guwahati, in respect of his treatme nt, prescription of RK Mission hospital for treatment of his wife and certificat e from GMCH, Guwahati, for treatment of his wife. However, the authorities on th e same day issued the impugned LPC to the petitioner wherein amongst other thing s at serial No 8 and 9, the recoverable amounts were shown in respect of double HRA Rs. 65,482.00 and medical bill amounting to Rs. 45, 080.00 paid to the Apoll o hospital, Chennai. In the said impugned LPC the petitioner has not challenged those items except at serial Nos 8 and 9. 4. Challenging the aforesaid decision of the respondent authorities to reco ver double HRA as well as the medical bills vide LPC dated 12.1.2007, the petiti oner has filed this writ petition. 5. The case of the petitioner was resisted by the respondent authorities by filing a counter wherein it is stated that as per relevant rules, the petitione r is not entitled to get HRA benefit on his transfer from Itanagar to Guwahati. It is also stated that the medical prescription issued by the GNRC hospital refe rring the petitioner to Apollo Hospital in that part of the recommendation the s ignature of the doctor was not to be found. On such count it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to the aforesaid amount and those are recoverable fro m him. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the case of the petitioner and his wife was referred to the Apollo Hospital, Chennai, by the Director of Health Services, Arunachal Pra desh. The Director of Health Services, Aruanchal Pradesh, is also a doctor. Upon consideration of necessary prescriptions, case history and the recommendation o f GNRC Hospital, Guwahati as well as RK Mission Hospital, Itanagar, approved the cases of the petitioner and his wife for undergoing necessary treatment at Apol lo Hospital, Chennai. 7. In that view of the matter, the decision of the authorities to recover t he medical bills amounting to Rs. 45,080.00 paid to the Apollo Hospital, Chennai , is not justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, said item No 9 is set aside and quashed and the amount of medical bill is not recove rable from the petitioner. 8. Coming to the double HRA amounting to Rs. 65,482.00 at serial No 8 of th e impugned LPC, the submission of Mr Das is that as per relevant rules covering the field, the benefit of HRA is admissible only to those central government civ ilian employees who are transferred from outside North Eastern Region and who c ontinue to keep their families outside North Eastern Region at the last duty sta tion. These Central Government employees on subsequent transfer to another State / Union territory within the North Eastern Region would continue to be entitled to this benefit provided their families continue to stay in the same place outs ide the North Eastern Region. It is further provided in the Rules that those emp loyees who have not been posted to the North Eastern Region from outside the Nor th Eastern Region will not be entitled to this benefit. Admittedly, the petition er is not covered under the aforesaid Rules. 9. Mr Upadhaya submits that although there is such financial instruction co vering the field, in fact, the department has allowed such HRA to other employee s and the petitioner should not be discriminated on that count and accordingly, he is also entitled to be paid such HRA. Although the petitioner has tried to ma ke out a case of discrimination attracting the provisions of Article 14 of the C onstitution, Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be applied in a negative sens e. If the departmental authorities giving certain benefits to certain employees in breach or violation of financial norms that cannot be a ground for providing the same benefit to the petitioner. The Court cannot permit the authorities to c ommit another wrong that stated to have been committed by the department. Accord ingly, in view of the aforesaid financial instruction, I hold that the petitione r is not entitled to HRA amounting to Rs. 65,482.00 and the said amount is recov erable from the petitioner as provided at serial No 8 of the impugned LPC. 10. In view of the above discussions, the prayer of the petitioner for sett ing aside the decision to recover the medical bill amounting to Rs. 45,080.00 as mentioned at serial No 9 stands allowed and the prayer for quashing double HRA amounting to Rs. 65,482.00 as noted at serial No 8 of the impugned LPC stands re jected. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. No costs.