Civil Writ Petition No. 3750 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3750 of 1989 Date of Decision: March 03, 2009 Smt. Inder Pal Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab. 1. Whether Reports of local papers may be allowed to see the judgments? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The prayer made by the petitioners in the instant petition is for issuance of writ of certiorari seeking quashing of audit note (P-1). According to the audit note, house rent allowance is admissible to only one of the spouses, if they are not residing separately, as per the instructions issued by the Punjab Government F.D. letter No. 39/6/82- 8/FR/5900 dated 4.7.1983. The audit note further shows that during the audit, it has been noticed that the petitioners were living together and both of them were drawing HRA in violation of the aforesaid instructions. The audit objection further suggested that the over payment shown be regularised or recovered from them. In the written statement stand taken by the respondent is that the petitioners were given house rent allowance when they made specific statements that their husbands have stopped availing the allowance from their respective offices, which is as per the requirement of instructions dated 4.7.1983. The written statement further shows that Civil Writ Petition No. 3750 of 1989 -2- the petitioners and their husbands have received HRA during the period from July, 1983 to April, 1987, which is liable to be recovered from them. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 21.3.1989, an interim direction to stay the recovery of the excess amount was issued and writ petition petition was admitted. I have heard the learned State counsel and perused the averments made in the writ petition. I am of the considered view that according to the instructions dated 4.7.1983, only one of the spouses was entitled to avail the facility of house rent allowance, if they were living together. There is no challenge to the instructions dated 4.7.1983. The instructions have force of law and the house rent allowance availed by the petitioners along with their husbands is not legally payable to them. However, the question remains as to whether the recovery be ordered. This is not the only option available because in the audit objection (P-1), it has been observed that either the over payment be regularised or recovery be effected from the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the view that after such a long time the recovery of the excess amount which is in few thousand should not be preferred, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that no recovery of excess amount be made from the petitioners. Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE March 3, 2009 R.S.