IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33066 of 2004(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. T.G. SUMA, HEADMISTRESS, S.N.V. U.P.S., ELTHURUTH, KODUNGALLUR. 2. K.V. SATHYAN, PEON, DO. DO. 3. V.K. REMANI, SANSKRIT TEACHER, DO. DO. 4. T.G. JAYALAKSHMI, U.P.S.A., DO. DO. 5. K.S. MOLY, L.P.S.A., DO. DO. 6. T.N. PRAMEELA, U.P.S.A., DO. DO. 7. K.K. RATNAVALLY, L.P.S.A., DO. DO. 8. P.V. LALITHA, DO. DO. 9. P.K. SOBHA, L.P.S.A., DO. DO. 10. P.K. ANJUKUMAR, U.P.S.A., DO. DO. 11. K.A. THILAKAM, U.P.S.A., DO. DO. 12. P.K. MOHAMED YOOSEPHALI, ARABIC TEACHER, DO. DO. 13. K.S. JALAJA, L.P.S.A., DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED 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 DT.EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, IRNJALAKKUDA. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DILIP MOHAN FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 33777 OF 2004 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 33066/2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR DT. 1-4-2000. EXT.P2 CIRCULAR DT. 8-5-2001. EXT.P3 CIRCULAR DT. 7-9-2004. EXT.P4 LETTER DT. 18-10-2004. EXT.P5 CERTIFICATE DT. 7-4-1990. EXT.P6 REPRESENTATION DT. 5-2-2004. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 12-7-2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------------- EXT.R1(a) OFFICE MEMORANDUM DT. 18-11-2004. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) Nos. 33066 & 33777 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The petitioners in these two writ petitions are employees of aided schools. They are challenging the proceedings initiated for recovery of excess HRA alleged to be drawn by them. Their schools are near Kodungaloor Municipality. According to them, in view of Ext. P1 circular issued by the Government, they are entitled to HRA at higher rates admissible to B2 Class cities/C Class cities, which had been paid to them. But, later on, on an audit objection raised against the same, the petitioners have been directed to refund the HRA drawn by them in excess of Rs.100/- p.m. with effect from 1-11-1998. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the audit objection and orders of recovery. 2. The petitioners raise two contentions. The first is that, as per Ext. P1 circular, they are entitled to HRA at the higher rate. The second is that even if they are not so eligible, since they had not contributed to the mistake, the excess amount drawn by them should not be recovered from them at this late stage. 3. The learned Government Pleader would contend that even going by Ext. P1, the petitioners are not entitled to the higher rate of HRA. Regarding the second contention, he would contend that the fact that the petitioners did not contribute to the mistake would not debar the Government from recovering excess amount as held by this Court in Santhakumari v. State of Kerala, 2005(4) KLT 649. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Going by Ext. P1 circular, in case of employees working in offices situated within 5 kilometers from B Class cities and at the same time fall within one kilometer from municipal limits, the HRA at higher rates admissible to B2 Class cities/C class cities as the case may be, can be paid to employees. The petitioners have no case that W.P.C. Nos. 33066 & 33777/2004 -: 2 :- their offices are situated within 5 kilometers from B Class cities and at the same time within one kilometer from municipal limits. That being so, they are not eligible for the higher rate of HRA as per Ext. P1. 6. Regarding the second contention, I do not find any merit in view of the decision relied upon by the learned Government Pleader. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. Accordingly, they are dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/