1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 5085 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20th December, 2010 Rajiv Malhotra and another Petitioners Versus H.P. Horticultural Produce Marketing Processing Corporation Limited Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioners: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr.Lalit Sehgal, Advocate, vice counsel. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Facts are not in dispute. Rajiv Malhotra (petitioner No.1) was residing with his sister, who as a government servant was allotted government accommodation and Sh. Lokinder Rathroe (petitioner No.2) was staying with his brother, again a government servant, who also was allotted government accommodation. 2. Respondent-Corporation has turned down the petitioners’ request for payment of house rent Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 allowance. Consequently petitioners have filed the instant petition primarily assailing the action of the respondent in turning down their request in terms of impugned orders dated 31.5.1997 (Annexures A-1 and A- 2). They have also challenged recovery of the amount vide orders dated 6.6.1998 (Annexures A-7 and A-8). 3. Respondent-Corporation is seeking reliance on Office Memorandum dated 2.8.1983 (Annexure R-2) in support of its action. 4. There is no dispute that petitioners are gainfully employed with the respondent Corporation and otherwise would have been entitled to payment of house rent allowance but for the fact that they are living in the Government accommodation allotted to their relatives by the State Government. 5. My attention has been invited to the relevant clauses of the office memorandum dated 2.8.1983, which for determining the controversy in issue and better appreciation are reproduced as under:- “viii). A government servant eligible for the concession will have to furnish certificates, in the form given below: 1) I certify that I have not been provided with Government accommodation not have I refused such accommodation during the period in respect of which the allowance is claimed. 3 2) I certify that, I am incurring some expenditure on rent/contributing towards rent. 3) I certify that I am not sharing accommodation allotted to my parents/ children/wife/husband/ by the State Government, Central Government and autonomous public sector undertaking (including GIC and Nationalised Banks) or semi government organization such as municipalities etc., allotted rent free accommodation to another government servant. 4) I, also certify that my wife/husband has not been allotted family accommodation at the same station by the State Government, Central Government, an autonomous public Sector Undertaking or semi government organization such as Municipalities etc. 5) I certify that I am residing in a house owned by me/my wife/husband/parents.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Perusal of the relevant clauses make it evident that brother and sister are specifically not included in the list of relatives with whom an employee should not be sharing the allotted government accommodation. Office memorandum categorically specifies parents, children, wife and husband. That apart, from the record it could not be pointed out, as also it is also not the case of the Corporation, that in any event accommodation allotted to the sister and the brother of the respective petitioners was “rent free”. 7. Consequently, stand taken by the respondent- Corporation is untenable in law and the impugned 4 letters dated 31.5.1997 (Annexures A-1 & A-2) and 6.6.1998 (Annexures A-7 and A-8) are quashed. The amount already disbursed to the petitioners by way of house rent allowance cannot be recovered as it does not fall within the exception clauses. 8. In any event by way of interim order dated 9.6.1998 operation of Annexures A-7 and A-8 was stayed which order is in operation till date and no recovery has been effected. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, present petition is allowed. 20th December, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.