1 aswp-7745-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7745 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Vidya Satyawan Pendnekar and ors. .. Respondents Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for Petitioners-State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. OCTOBER 13, 2011. P.C. 1. We have heard Mr. Vagyani, the learned AGP for the petitioners-State. 2. The petition impugns a common judgment and order dated 30/4/2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in a group of Original Applications. 3. At the threshold, we would be justified in dismissing this petition on the ground of inordinate delay alone because, as admitted in the 2 aswp-7745-11 petition memo itself, the sanction to file petition was granted on 9/9/2010 and the petition has been filed on 28/7/2011. However, we have examined the challenge to the impugned order on merits as well. 4. It was the case of the State Government that the original applicants who are working as Staff Nurses or other medical personnel in various hospitals of the Employees State Insurance Scheme (ESIS) at Thane, Kandivali, Mulund and Ulhasnagar shall be entitled for House Rent Allowance if they were occupying their own houses, rather than availing the Government accommodation. The employees concerned challenged the decision of the State Government in separate Original Applications starting from O.A. No. 27 of 2003 and ending with O.A. No.1503 of 2009 (in all 87 O.As.). The Tribunal has heard all the parties concerned, considered the Government Resolutions dated 30/5/1989 and 1/1/1991 as well as the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 4223 of 2003 and the orders passed by the Tribunal in similar applications filed earlier. The learned Presenting Officer appearing for the State Government had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kesaragod and ors. vs. M. Purushothaman and ors. [AIR 1994 SC 2541] and contended that the Government was justified in denying the payment of House Rent Allowance to the original applicants. The Tribunal noted that the rules referred to by the Supreme Court in the case of Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute (Supra) were diametrically opposite to that of the GRs dated 30/5/1989 and 1/1/1991 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. Mr. Vagyani the learned AGP referred to the GR dated 3 aswp-7745-11 1/1/1991 and submitted that if any of the employees falling in the categories mentioned in the said GR refused to occupy the Government quarter on account of their nature of duties, they will not be entitled for reimbursement of House Rent Allowance if they occupy their own accommodation. The Tribunal held that both the Government Resolutions did not support the impugned action against the said employees and allowed the original applications. 5. We have gone through the reasoning elaborately set out by the Tribunal and we do not find any reason to hold that it suffers from any infirmities. In our considered opinion the challenge to the impugned common order is devoid of merits and, therefore, this petition must fail at the threshold. 6. Hence, the petition is rejected summarily. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)