IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.3289 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.09.2011 Harmohani Sharma, Head Mistress, Government Primary School, Vallah, Amritsar. ....Petitioner versus The State of Punjab, through the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Education, Punjab, Chandigarh, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The subject of dispute in this writ petition is 2,500 rupees availed as House Rent Allowance (HRA) by the petitioner between the years 1978 to 1981 which was sought to be recovered by the State on the ground that her husband was also employed and drawn her allowances. The counsel for the petitioner would state that the Government had allowed her the benefit of HRA for all period except for 1978 to 1981, when her consistent case was that although she had been married in the year 1965, she had been separated from her husband in 1970 and living separately since then. The counsel points out to me the relevant proceedings of the Government of Punjab, dated 04.07.1983, that allows for spouses, Civil Writ Petition No.3289 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - who live separately from their spouses due to long distances in places of posting or because of estrangement between them to claim HRA. Apart from her own affidavit, the petitioner has also filed a certificate from the landlord that she has been his tenant at Amritsar from the year 1975. 2. The learned counsel for the State points out that in the year 1985, she had herself given a statement that her husband was drawing HRA and that it could be stopped w.e.f. 1985. It is not possible to gather information from the records of whether the parties have resumed company at the relevant time when such a letter was given on 14.06.1985. The counsel for the State also points out to me that the statement given by her in the year 1983 that her husband was working in the University, but I do not think this statement contains any reference adverse to her cause. She has stated that her husband was not getting HRA. With no proof that her husband was receiving HRA during that relevant period of 1978 to 1981, the mere fact that her husband was an employee of the University, cannot prove anything for the Government to secure the refund of the benefit obtained by the petitioner. 3. The recovery notice brought through the order dated 06.02.1989 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 22.09.2011 sanjeev