CWP No.8036 of 1989 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8036 of 1989 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.09.2011 Smt. Sushil Bansal, Vaidya, I/c G.A.D. Mullanpur Garib Dass, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar and others ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab through Finance Secretary to Finance Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:None for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. AG, Punjab. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1 All the five petitioners in the writ petition seek for a restraint against the respondents from stopping the payment of HRA to the petitioners pursuant to the notifications issued on 30.08.1988 and 01.09.1988 that purported to implement the recommendations of the 3rd Punjab Pay Commission regarding the grant of House Rent Allowance. Through the said notifications, classifications of cities and towns had been modified and instead of two categories that existed as Class A and Class B, it was modified on the basis of population. Class A city would be cities above 2,00,000 population, Class B above population of 1,00,000, Class C above population of 25,000 but less than 1,00,000 and Class D having a population of less than CWP No.8036 of 1989 (O&M) [2] 25,000. After setting out rates of HRA for various pay scales Clause (ii) of the notification, provided that the amount of House Rent Allowance drawn by employees at higher rates shall be protected till the rate of House Rent Allowance gets adjusted in the revised rates. The interpretation to this Clause has come through a decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab” in SLP No.9149 of 1992 decided on 21.04.1995. This decision was approved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court again in “Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and another v. Sudarshan Parshad and others, 2006(9) SCC 152” while dealing with the instructions adopted by the PSEB relating to grant of HRA. 2. In terms of the judgment, there shall be no scope for withdrawal of HRA to such of those persons, who had been granted a higher HRA and it could be protected till the year 1988 when the 4th Pay Commission recommendations came into effect from 09.01.1998. There have been subsequent modifications but suffice it to observe that the petitioners will have the benefit of protection in the manner laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in two decisions referred to above. From the records, it is seen that the operation of the letter dated 30.08.1988 was stayed by this Court. Consequently, the petitioners could not come to any harm. 3. The writ petition is allowed subject to the protection in the manner referred to above. SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE