IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33281 of 2010 Between: B. Loka Reddy … Petitioner And The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund Organisation Hyderabad … Respondent This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.33281 of 2010 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the following relief: “For the reasons sated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased in the interest of justice to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent in deducting the license fee from the subsistence allowance from January 2010 is illegal, arbitrary unjust and improper while consequently directing to pay House Rent Allowance from January 2010 onwards and by refunding the License fee already deducted from December 2009 to November 2010 and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, else petitioner will suffer grave and irreparable loss.’ It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was working as UDC in the Coal Mines Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad and he was suspended from the service on 11.12.2009 on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him for misappropriation of the provident fund of the workers of the company and by virtue of Rule 10(7) of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965, he is entitled for subsistence allowance and without actually applying for any quarter of the company at Margherita, the respondent claims that he was allotted quarter No.B6 of the company there and did not pay him house rent allowance from January 2010 and also collected licence fee at the rate of Rs.108 per month for the period from 17.12.2009 to November 2010 out of the subsistence allowance correspondingly though he never occupied the quarter and there should have been application filed by the petitioner for the allotment of quarter and the same should have been accepted by the respondent Management, but there is no basis to come to such a conclusion and he sent a letter on 26.11.2010 to the management not to deduct the licence fee and HRA on the ground that he never occupied the quarter, but it was in vain and therefore the amounts deducted from the subsistence allowance should be directed to be returned back to the petitioner. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that from the salary of the petitioner HRA and licence fee were deducted for 24 months i.e., up to 31.08.2010, without any objection from the petitioner which circumstances would show that the petitioner was allotted the quarter and has been staying in the quarter and absolutely there is no basis to show that he has surrendered the quarter to the Management and the letter, dated 26.11.2010, is not suffice to come to any conclusion that the petitioner never occupied the quarter and he vacated and handed over it to the Management. The point for consideration is whether substantial grounds are there in order to grant the relief prayed for? There is absolutely no record to the effect that the quarter was allotted to the petitioner apart from the accounts given in respect of paying the HRA and licence fee up to December 2009. However, unless the allotment of the quarter was there, the question of deducting the HRA and licence fee from the salary of the petitioner would not have arisen. The procedure narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regards to the allotment of the quarter is only directory and not mandatory in nature and the same is not important when there is ample evidence that the HRA and licence fee were deducted from the salary of the petitioner for several months. Then it is for the petitioner to show that he vacated the quarter. There is absolutely no record to the effect that the petitioner vacated the quarter taking necessary measures. However, the letter, dated 26.11.2010, make it clear that the petitioner was no longer in the occupation of the quarter and therefore the deduction of HRA and licence fee from his salary should be stopped. When such a letter was sent to the Management, the latter should have issued necessary proceedings for taking over the possession of the quarter following necessary formalities. But, no documentary evidence is placed before the Court in that context, which shows lethargy or deliberate intention on the part of the Management to harass the petitioner in that context. In the circumstances it is to be deemed that atleast from 26.11.2010 he is not in the occupation of the quarter. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Management to return the subsistence allowance and licence fee which might have been deducted from the petitioner’s salary with effect from 26.11.2010, observing that the Management deemed to have taken over the quarter with effect from the said date. The management is also directed not to deduct the HRA and licence fee from the petitioner’s salary apart from paying the dues to him. The Management should return the deducted amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Date:- 12.12.2011 ES