IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 33930 of 2004(L) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. K.S.USHAKUMARI, HEADMISTRESS, V.V.U.P.S, KOTHAPARAMBU. 2. VANAJAM K.K., TEACHER, L.P.S.A., DO.DO. 3. P.V.OMANA, TEACHER. L.P.S.A, DO.DO. 4. M.P.MARY, TEACHER, U.P.S.A, DO.DO. 5. M.K.GEETHA, TEACHER, U.P.S.A., DO.DO. 6. O.R.ISHA, TEACHER, U.P.S.A., DO.DO. 7. V.S.BEENA, TEACHER. L.P.S.A., DO.DO. 8. P.J.SEEMA, TEACHER, L.P.S.A., DO.DO. 9. T.R.RAJI, TEACHER, L.P.S.A., DO.DO. 10. P.R.JYOTHI, TEACHER, L.P.S.A., DO.DO. 11. A.M.ARIFA, ARABIC TEACHER, DO.DO. 12. P.A.MARY, URUDU TEACHER, DO.DO. 13. V.A.SREE, HINDI TEACHER, DO.DO. 14. T.G.SANDHYA, TEACHER, L.P.S.A., DO.DO. 15. K.G.DHANAM, PEON , DO.DO. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY W.P.(C)No.33930/04 -2- RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA BRANCH TRICHUR. 3. THE DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, TRICHUR. 4. THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KODUNGALLUR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.33930/04 PETITIONERS' EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.18/2001/FIN. DATED 1.4.2000. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING DIVISION, TRICHUR DT.2.11.2000. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.34/2001/FIN.DT.8.5.2001. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING NOTE OF THE A.E.O., DT.12.7.04. EXT.R1(A): TRUE COPY OF OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.2(21)/EII(B)/2004 DATED 18.11.2004. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33930 Of 2004-L ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MAY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are aggrieved by the recovery of house rent allowance paid to them based on Exhibit P3 order. The 1st petitioner was the Headmistress and petitioners 2 to 14 are the Teachers and the 15th petitioner was a Peon of the V.V.U.P.S., Kothaparambu, which is within one Kilometer from Kodungallur Municipality. 2. Exhibit P1 circular provides for rate of house rent allowance. It was specified in clause (2) that “employees working in offices, situated within 5 kilometers from B2 cities and one kilometer from “C” Class cities will be paid HRA at the rate admissible in the respective categories subject to observation of following procedure as at present”. The school in question is within one Kilometer from Kodungallur Municipality. The same is certified by the Executive Engineer, PWD Building Division, Thrissur. Accordingly, claims were submitted and the bills were sanctioned also. W.P.(C)No. 33930/04 -2- 3. Exhibit P3 circular was later issued as a clarification. It was clarified that employees working in Offices situated within 5 kilometers from city limits of B2 Class cities and one kilometer from “C” Class cities alone are eligible for house rent allowance at higher rates and employees working in offices situated within one kilomter from the city limits of other Municipal towns are eligible for house rent allowance admissible to unclassified places. On the basis of the same, recovery was sought to be made against the petitioners. 4. In the counter affidavit, details of B2 cities and “C” Class Cities have been given in paragraph No.3. As per the same, the Kodungallur Municipality is not included among the “C” Class cities. It is therefore contended that the petitioners are not eligible for the benefit of HRA under Exhibit P1. 5. Evidently, the Municipality, namely, Kodungallur Municipality is not a “C” Class City and hence the payment of house rent allowance to the petitioners are irregular. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the recovery part cannot be justified as Exhibit P3 cannot be retrospective. The learned Government Pleader explained that W.P.(C)No. 33930/04 -3- Exhibit P3 is issued as a clarification and even going by Note(a) which is extracted in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit it can be seen that rate of house rent allowance payable is subject to the classification of the cities/places from time to time by the Government of India and appropriate orders thereon by the State Government. The learned Government Pleader also submitted that similar Writ Petitions have been dismissed by this Court. 7. Evidently, this is not a case where the petitioners were being paid HRA on the basis of the provisions contained in Exhibit P1. If it was a case where, by Exhibit P3 a new norm was introduced, they could have escaped from the rigor of recovery proceedings. But, herein, the claim based on Exhibit P1 itself is termed as irregular, which cannot be disputed. In that view of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the Writ Petition. It is made clear that the recovery will be made in instalments as provided in Exhibit P3. The Writ Petition is thus dismissed. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn