IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14595 of 2008 Rahul Kumar Raj, Son of Late Radhe Kumar, Resident of Chainpur Bela Depulwa, P.S. Jakkanpur District Patna-1 as posted as Clerk at Sahid Ramanand Ram Govind Singh High School Punpun P.S. Punpun, District Patna………………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Patna. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mashauri, District Patna. 5. The Sub-Treasury Officer, Mashouri, District Patna………………………………………………………………………………….Respondents ---------- 3 17.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of an order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Masaurhi contained in letter no.215 dated 14.10.2001, vide Annexure-3, by which Sub- Divisional Officer has communicated the Sub-Treasury Officer, Masaurhi that the petitioner was not entitled for house rent allowance at the rate of 15% as he was residing outside the jurisdiction of Patna Municipal Corporation area. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon an order dated 05.07.2011 passed by this Court in a batch 2 of writ applications led by CWJC No. 3138 of 2008. It appears that the said batch of cases was disposed of in the light of the order dated 12.07.2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 779 of 2001 wherein it was held that Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority to reject the claim of any teacher for house rent allowance and it was only the Deputy Development Commissioner (in short, ‘D.D.C.’) who had the authority under law to consider such claims and pass orders in respect of admissibility, or otherwise, of house rent allowance and its rate. In the present cased also, it is the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, which is under challenge. Since this Court has already held that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no authority in law to reject the claim of any teacher for house rent allowance, the said order is, therefore, quashed. However, as noticed by this Court earlier, the claim of the petitioner has to be considered by the D.D.C., who has to see 3 to it that the same is considered in accordance with law and is disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was residing beyond 8 kilometers from the outer limits of Patna Municipal Corporation. Hence, he was not entitled for house rent allowance at the rate of 15%. He has drawn the attention of this Court to a report of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Masaurhi addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, wherein it was informed that distance of school in which petitioner was working, was 10 kilometers from the outer limits of Patna Municipal Corporation. He submits that the said report is the basis for passing the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. Be that as it may, even if the Executive Engineer had submitted a report that petitioner was residing beyond 8 kilometers from the outer limits of Patna Municipal Corporation, it was the D.D.C, who, under law, was authorized to consider the same and pass orders after hearing the 4 petitioner on his claim that he is residing within 8 kilometers and not beyond that. This is a factual aspect of the matter, which D.D.C. is required to consider and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. The writ application is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Patna to examine the mater, give adequate opportunity to the petitioner to and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)