IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 5913 of 2008. Decided on: 15.6.2011. __________________________________________________________ Smt. Chand Rani … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : None. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy.A.G. for respondents No. 1 & 3. Mr. Ashok K. Thakur, CGSG for respondent No.2. __________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petition is filed with the following prayers:- “(i). That the audit para raised by respondent No. 2 keeping in view the House Rent Allowance, provided under the Central Civil Services Rules as well as keeping in view the distance from Kandrori to Bhapoo, beyond 8 kms having separate shelters, i.e. of husband and wife, may kindly be set aside and quashed. Further respondent No.3 be directed that the house rent allowance stopped which is being drawn earlier may be drawn and paid to the applicant along with arrear of rent which is due w.e.f. 8/07 with interest. (ii) That the recovery orders passed by respondent No.3 i.e. Rs. 9,575/- being illegal, wrong, arbitrary, contrary to law and provisions, unconstitutional, without giving any opportunity and against the law, deserve to be set aside and quashed and the same be quashed.” 2. In the reply filed by respondent No.2 at para 6, it is stated as follows:- “6. In reply to this para, it is respectfully submitted that while conducting the audit of office of 2 Headmistress, Govt. Girls High School, Indora (Kangra), H.P. (respondent No.3), it was observed that applicant as well as her husband were drawing House Rent Allowance. As per Finance Department to the Government of Himachal Pradesh letter No. Fin. (C ) B (7)- 7/93 dated 12.6.1996 as circulated by Director, Food and Supplies, H.P., Shimla vide endorsement No. FDWS (H) (B) (15) 3/96- 21350-62 dated 11.7.1996 where both husband and wife are in service and posted at the same station and residing in the same house, the House Rent Allowance is payable to only one of them. (Copy enclosed as Annexure R-1). As a safeguard of payment of House Rent Allowance to both, the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer is to obtain a certificate to this effect that other spouse has not been drawing House Rent Allowance. Keeping in view the above instructions, the Audit Party had framed a para titled as “Irregular payment of House Rent Allowance” of Rs. 7,650/- of which Rs. 5,625/- pertain to petitioner, as no certificate from Drawing and Disbursing Officer of spouse (husband) was produced to audit party. Since the completion of audit, respondent-Department had not made any correspondence in this regard, neither requisite certificate was produced. Even thereafter no reply was received from the respondent-Department. The respondent- Department had issued the orders to effect the recovery vide Annexure A-2 which shows that respondent-Department had accepted the version of audit party. Besides the contention of the applicant that both husband and wife are allowed House Rent Allowance if an employee share private accommodation with spouse, is not correct. This is applicable where both husband and wife are Central Govt. employees. The applicant is a State Government employee and her services are 3 governed by State Government Rules/instructions and her husband is a Central Government employee in Defence Deptt. However, if requisite certificate is submitted by the respondent-department, the replying respondent can consider to settle the para. Rest of the averments need no submissions.” 3. In view of the stand taken by the 2nd respondent, as above, in case the petitioner has still any grievance left, the petitioner may approach the first respondent, in which case the first respondent shall look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law in the matter within a period of four months from the date of making representation along with a copy of this judgment by the petitioner. 4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. (Justice V.K. Sharma) June 15, 2011. Judge. (cr/pankaj)