IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22124 of 1999 Between: 1 N.Partha Sarathy son of N.Sriramulu 3-12117/SC, Pasam Sathaiah Colony, Ramanthpur, Hyderabad- 500013 2 C.M.Rao son of C.Madhava Rao Flat No. 101, star apartments, Yellareddy Guda, Hyderabad-73 3 A.Suryanarayanna son of A.Viswanatha Sastry 1-11-220/13, Brindavan Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16 4 E.Rama Rao son of E.P.Narsaiah 72/2RT, Municpal Colony, Hyderabad-500036 5 R.C.J.Narsimlu, son of Gangaiah Flat No. 11/43, Vysya Bank Apartments , Huda Colony Saroornagar, Hyderabad-500035 6 A.Subba Rao son of A.A. Raju Flat No. 7 , Rajyalakshmi Apartments R.K.Nagar Malkajgiri, Hyderabad-47 7 M.K.D. Prasad son of M.Sadasiva Rao Flat No. 303, Phase III , Radha Devi Apartments Nehru Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-13 ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Union Of India North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, 110011 2 Director Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs Govt of Inida, . North Bolck , Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110011 3 Jt. Director , SIB. Secretariat Road, Saifabad , Hyderabad-500004 4 Registrar, CAT. Hyderabad, HACA Bhavan , Hyderabad -500004 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction , more particularly one in nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in the O.A.No. 293/98, and M.A. 80/99 on the file of the Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad, and quash the orders dated. 6/08/99, 14/10/99 respectively and also quash the orders of R-1 contained in Memo No. 16/Terms (c)/96(1)-98 dated. 20/01/98, and that of Memo. No.3/80/Hyd/86-422, 424, 426,431,435,441,dt,. 2/2/98 and pass such order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.S.A.SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.22124 OF 1999 ORDER: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) The applicants in OA No.293 of 1998 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, are the petitioners herein. The petitioners filed the said OA No.293 of 1998 seeking to set aside the memo dated 2-2-1998 issued by the Deputy Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, (MHA), Government of India, Hyderabad, as being illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to allow the quantum of HRA on confrere basis as applicable to their counterparts in State of AP, thereby avoiding recovery of amounts of HRA paid on presumptive basis with effect from 1-4-1993 and also to set aside the memo dated 20-1-1998 in not allowing them to exercise the option either to draw HRA by confrere basis offered to their counterparts in the State Government or to come over to the scale allowed to similar officers in the Central Government whenever pay revision takes place. 2. Facts stated are : the petitioners are direct recruits to the Intelligence Bureau and employees of Directorate of Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi- 2nd respondent herein, but subsequently they are posted within the State of Andhra Pradesh to work under Joint Director, SIB, Hyderabad-respondent no.3 herein. It is stated that the petitioners are paid HRA on presumptive pay with effect from 1-4-1993 based on merger of DA to the equivalent rank of officers working in Government of AP. It is not disputed that the petitioners herein are direct recruits in the Intelligence Bureau and their house rent allowance is governed by letter dated 4-12-1976 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. It is stated that as per the instructions contained in the said letter dated 4-12-1976, there is no option to draw HRA on confrere basis to direct recruits to the Intelligence Bureau and option to draw HRA on confrere basis is to be exercised only by the employees who come on deputation basis to the Intelligence Bureau. But it is the case of the petitioners that as per the said memo dated 4-12-1976 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, they can exercise option either to take the rent free unfurnished accommodation or house rent allowance in lieu thereof as admissible to the corresponding Police officers in the State of their posting. 3. After considering the rival contentions, by the impugned order, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the memo dated 4-12- 1976, however, directed that the excess amounts sought to be recovered from the petitioners be recovered in easy installments. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed by the applicants in the OA. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, the petitioners are direct recruits in the Intelligence Bureau and they were transferred from various places in the country to Hyderabad to work under respondent no.3 organization at Hyderabad. The petitioners opted to draw HRA applicable to their counter parts working in AP State Government and they have been drawing HRA on par with them for a number of years. It is stated that when the State Government revised the pay scales of the Police officers with effect from 1-1-1993 by merger of 83 % DA, the 3rd respondent on his own volition had also calculated HRA of the petitioners herein on the pattern of the AP State Police officers in order to maintain parity. 6. Inasmuch as the petitioners are working in a place which is other than their place of initial appointment and also in view of the fact that the Joint Director, SIB, Hyderabad-3rd respondent, on his own volition had calculated HRA of the petitioners on the pattern of the AP State Police officers in order to maintain parity, there is no justification is seeking to recover the alleged excess amount said to have been paid to the petitioners, more so, when, out of the seven petitioners, petitioners 1 to 5 have already retired from service. 7. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have misguided and made them to pay the excess amount drawn by them. This is, in fact, a bonafide mistake committed by the respondents themselves. There is nothing wrong in correcting such a mistake committed by them. But, it would cause hardship to the petitioners if such amount already paid to them is recovered. 8. In the result, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as well as the order impugned therein are set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ______________________ C.V. Ramulu, J Dated:18th June, 2008 Nrg. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LOBIS}