IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 36233 of 2009(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT STAFF ASSOCIATION, REGIONAL CENTRE, COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL SECRETARY A.P.BASHEER. 2. A.P.BASHEER, LIBRARIAN, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, REGIONAL CENTRE, COCHIN. 3. K.PARTHAN, TYPIST, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, REGIONAL CENTRE, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRSENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT IN GOVERNMENT, REGIONAL CENTRE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682030. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 36233 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT The 1st petitioner is an association of the employees of the Regional Centre of the Institute of Management in Government, Cochin. Petitioners 2 and 3 are employees in the said establishment. 2. Their grievance is against Exts.P6 and P10 orders, passed by the 1st respondent rejecting their claim for HRA and CCA as applicable to city limits of Cochin. This claim was made by the petitioners by filing representations, the last of which is Ext.P7. The case of the petitioners is that the Institute of Management (IMG), Regional Centre, Kochi was situated within Cochin city limits and was shifted to Kakkanad in 1987 and therefore their's is also a case where the establishment was trans-located. It is stated that for this reason, their case is similar to the Government employees of District Collectorate, Ernakulam, dealt with Exts.P3 and P3 (a) and Exts.P9 and P9(a) issued in the case of the employees of the KPBS and the WPC : 36233 of 2009 -:2:- Electricity Board respectively. It is also stated that their claim was recognised and the benefit was extended till 2006 and that the same has been discontinued from 2006; leading to the representations and the impugned orders. 3. A reading of Ext.P6 shows that the claim made by the petitioners for restoring the benefit of higher rate of HRA and CCA has been turned down on the ground that the employees of Civil Station, Kakkanad were extended the said benefit due to trans-location of the Civil Station to Thrikkakara Panchyayat. This stand of the Government is reiterated in Ext.P10 also. As already stated, these orders do not taken into account the fact that petitioners’ establishment was also trans-located as in the case of the District Collectorate and that their claim was recognised and the benefit was extended to them. 4. Therefore, it is evident that Ext.P10 was issued without any application of mind and hence the matter needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I quash Exts.P6 and P10 and direct the 1st respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for higher rate of HRA and CCA on par with the employees of the WPC : 36233 of 2009 -:3:- Civil Station, Kakkanad and KPBS. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ttb