IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10944 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 08, 2009 Madan Lal .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. I.D. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Madan Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector, has filed this civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Orders 8.11.2007 and 20.2.2008, Annexure P-3 and P-4, respectively. Claim of the petitioner in nutshell is that although the petitioner has been asked to serve at Delhi, however, House Rent Allowance as admissible at Ludhiana is being paid. It has been pleaded that vide Order dated 26.1.2005, the CWP No.10944 of 2008 [2] petitioner was transferred from RPS, Dera Bassi to Signal Centre 3rd IRB Company Camp at Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi. The petitioner joined at Delhi on 5.2.2005 and continues to serve at Delhi till date. The order of transfer has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. Annexure P-2 details the House Rent Allowance permissible to all Government employees. The category relevant for consideration of the issue involved is as under:- “Employees posted in Cities outside the State population of 50 lakhs and above shall be entitled to House Rent Allowance at the rate of 30% of the basic pay. House Rent Allowance to be determined with reference to the place of posting.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that because the petitioner was not being paid the permissible House Rent Allowance, therefore, he made a representation claiming House Rent Allowance for stay of the petitioner in Delhi. No decision was taken and therefore, Civil Writ Petition No.11144 of 2007 came to be filed. This Court directed the representation to be decided vide Order dated 30.7.2007. The representation has been decided vide impugned Orders, Annexure P-3 and P-4. The stand taken by the respondents in Annexure P-3 is in the following terms:- “Consequently, the transfer orders of the petitioner CWP No.10944 of 2008 [3] are hereby modified to the extent that ASI Madan Lal No.83/W who was deputed at Signal Centre 3rd IRB Company Camp at Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi vide order No.140-55/Steno/DIG/C&T dated 26.01.2005 be treated as having been transferred to 3rd IRB Ludhiana w.e.f. 26.01.2005 and further attached at Signal Centre 3rd IRB company camp at Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi. These orders are issued keeping in view the facts that this wing has no sanctioned strength to be posted permanently at New Delhi. The official shall be entitled to draw consequential benefits admissible at Ludhiana upon submitting a fresh application accordingly.” It transpires that after filing of the representation and as a consequence of the order passed by this Court, while deciding the representation, order of posting of the petitioner was modified and he was posted at Ludhiana, however, asked to serve in Punjab Bhawan, New Delhi while being attached to Signal Centre 3rd IRB Company Camp. Annexure P-4 is a corrigendum to Annexure P-3 wherein it has been detailed that the officials of Punjab Police can be deputed in any part of the Country under the Punjab Police Rules. The officials of the wing have been deputed at New Delhi alongwith Indian Reserve Battalions of Punjab Police for communication duties. Annexure P-4 conveys the decision that the petitioner is entitled to House Rent Allowance against the permanent place of posting i.e. Ludhiana, and therefore, House Rent Allowance permissible against the permanent place CWP No.10944 of 2008 [4] of posting at Ludhiana is sanctioned w.e.f. 5.2.2005 i.e. the date on which the petitioner had joined at Delhi. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner being in Police could be posted anywhere, hence no fault can be traced in the action of the respondents. Place of posting of the petitioner is at Ludhiana. Consequential benefits are permissible only for stay at that place. Learned counsel further contends that all other personnel serving in Delhi, however, posted in a place in Punjab, are drawing their allowances as if they were serving in Punjab. I have considered the issue. Annexure P-2 makes it evident that the employees posted in a city outside the State in a place having population of more than 50 lakh and above shall be entitled to House Rent Allowance @ 30% of the Basic Pay. It is not in dispute that New Delhi would be covered under this category. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the petitioner joined at Delhi on 5.2.2005 and continues to serve at Delhi, that is to say that the petitioner has been living in Delhi. The objective of giving House Rent CWP No.10944 of 2008 [5] Allowance to an employee is to compensate the employee in regard to rent of house in accordance with the expense on rent of house at the place where the employee is required to serve. Merely because the place of posting of the petitioner has been shifted from Delhi to Ludhiana, would not disentitle him to House Rent Allowance for living in Delhi because admittedly, the petitioner is living in Delhi for serving the respondents. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is required to stay in Delhi only temporarily or infrequently, rather it is the admitted case that the petitioner is required to be permanently based in Delhi. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. It is directed that the case of the petitioner would be considered by the respondents within six weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order and would be allowed House Rent Allowance admissible to an employee in Punjab Police serving in Delhi. (AJAI LAMBA) July 08, 2009 JUDGE avin