IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.24740 of 2001 Date:25.11.2010 Between: K. Nagendar Reddy .....Petitioner AND The Executive Officer, T.T.Devastanams, Chittoor and 2 others. ....Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.24740 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioners seeking for issuance of writ or direction directing the respondents not to deduct the house rent allowance at 20% from the petitioner’s emoluments apart from collecting nominal rent of Rs.50/- per month from his salary. The petitioner was appointed as ‘Helper’ on N.M.R basis in the office of Deputy Electrical Engineer (South), T.T. Devastanams in the year 1983 and his serves were regularised in the said post in the year 1988. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Wireman in the year 1992. While he was working as Helper in T.T.Devastanams on N.M.R basis, he was residing in a private house at Chandrababu Thota which is behind the temple. In the process of beatification of the temple surroundings, the houses of the private individuals at Chandrababu Thota were intended to be demolished by T.T.D authorities. During the said process of acquisition, there was severe protest from the local residents. Hence, to avoid the delay process in acquisition of the said lands of the individuals at Chandrababu Thota, the temple authorities decided to provide alternative accommodation and a job for one of the each family to the displaced persons who have been residing in the said vicinity. The employees of the T.T.D are also residing on rental and on lease basis and they also protested for eviction. Then T.T.D authorities have decided to provide free quarters to the employees who are residing as tenants in Chandrababu Thota on nominal rent basis of Rs.30 and Rs.50/- per month respectively including the electricity and water charges subject to other conditions mentioned in the proceedings dated 25.11.1985. The petitioner being one of the displaced person, he was allotted a quarter vide proceedings dated 24.11.1987 by fixing the rent at 10% of his emoluments. Subsequently the employees of T.T.D have made a representation to the T.T. Devastanam authorities requesting to permit them to pay nominal rent on par with the displaced persons treating them purely as displaced persons without any cut over their emoluments under House Rent Allowance. Basing on the request of the employees, T.T. Devastanam authorities have considered their request and permitted them to pay nominal rent of Rs.50/- which was enhanced to Rs.67/- with effect from 01.04.1993 and they have been paying the same towards House Rent Allowance and the T.T.D authorities have not been deducting the House Rent Allowance from the salaries of the said employees. In pursuance of the same, the T.T.D authorities have to deduct the house rent allowance at Rs.50/- per month from the salary of the petitioner towards the nominal house rent allowance as he is also similarly situated person to that of the said displaced persons who were provided accommodation in T.T.D Choultries and appointed on N.M.R basis and subsequently absorbed into the T.T.D., services on regular basis. But, unfortunately, the respondents Devastanam not only collecting the nominal rent of Rs.50/- which was fixed to the petitioner’s quarter, but also the respondent authorities have been deducting the house rent allowances @ 20% on the total emoluments contrary to the proceedings in Roc.No.PO6/887/AEO®/TML/87 dated 24.11.1987 and proceedings in Ro.c.No.PO5/990/AEO(R)/TML/88 dated 05.01.1994. As such he is questioning the deducting of 20% from his salary apart from collecting of nominal rent of Rs.50/- per month from his salary. The respondents have filed a counter not disputing about petitioner being a displaced person from Chandrababu Thota and also admitted about the issuance of the proceedings for payment of nominal rent of Rs.50/- per month and deducting 10% of house rent allowance. Since the petitioner became a regular employee of the T.T. Devasthanam and as per the general rules, 20% house rent allowance will not be paid towards residential accommodation and as such deducting of 20% towards house rent allowance is not arbitrary and illegal. The respondents have issued proceedings in Roc.No.PO6/887/AEO®/TML/87 dated 24.11.1987 directing the employees to shift their rooms from INC cellar rooms to their eligible quarters allotted as noted against each on the usual terms. In the said list of persons, the petitioner is in serial No.7 and the rent per month is fixed at 10% of his total emoluments. Even prior to issuance of the said proceedings, the respondents have issued another proceedings in Roc.No.PO5/3942/DRO(T)/85 dated 25.11.1985 stating that the list of employees allotted in Balaji Nagar, T.T.D Choultries and T.T.D employees quarters at Tirumala as noted against each in annexure have to subject to the terms and conditions and they should pay the rent at 10% per month besides paying the electrical and water charges as per demands by the respective departments. Therefore, even as per the proceedings initially issued in the year 1985, the rent payable to the Government at 10% and in the year 1987 also the petitioner was allotted quarter on condition of payment of 10% per month on the total emoluments. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court to the proceedings of 1st respondent in Roc.No.PO5/990/AEO®/TML/88, dated 05.01.1994 wherein it is stated that some of the displaced persons were subsequently absorbed in T.T.D services on regular basis and they have made representation to permit them to pay nominal rent of Rs.67/- with effect from 01.04.1993 on par with others, treating them purely as displaced persons without any cut over their emoluments under house rent allowance and the same was accepted. None appears on behalf of the respondents to clarify about the recovery of 20% towards House Rent Allowance from the salary of the petitioner. No proceedings were issued by the respondents for deducting 20% per month towards House Rent Allowance from the salary of the petitioner. Since the petitioner being a displaced person and as per the proceedings dated 25.11.1987, he is liable to pay 10% per month of his emoluments towards the rent. Therefore, recovery of the rent at 20% per month towards House Rent Allowance apart from nominal rent is violative of the proceedings of the respondents. This Court in W.P.M.P.No.31264 of 2001 has directed the respondents not to deduct more than 10% towards the rent from the salary of the petitioner. Even though the petitioner was similarly absorbed like the other employees to the T.T.D and they were permitted to pay nominal rent at Rs.67/- per month. The respondents were ordered not to deduct more than 10% towards house rent allowance as per the interim order passed by this Court. The petitioner’s counsel has stated he has no objection for deducting of 10% of house rent allowance towards rent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the petitioner being a displaced person, the respondents are directed to deduct only 10% of the house rent allowance towards rent for the allotted quarter and to refund the excess amount collected from him from 26.12.2001 to December, 2002 to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD,J November 25, 2010 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.24740 of 2001 Date: 25.11.2010 Gk.