THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Writ Petition No.30022 of 2010 ORDER (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed, J) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the order, dated 05.10.2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), dismissing R.A.No.32 of 2010 filed for reviewing the dismissal order, dated 09.08.2010, passed in O.A.No.188 of 2010, by it. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner, who was working as Junior Works Manager in the respondents’ organization, was transferred from the Ordinance Factory, Medak to the Ordinance Factory, Ambernath and was relieved on 01.01.2008. After availing joining time, he reported to duty on 16.01.2008 at his new station. For non-payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA), he made representations on 11.02.2008 and 14.03.2008 to the third respondent, who in turn intimated the petitioner vide letter, dated 30.03.2008 that the payment of HRA was stopped and he would apply for quarter accommodation. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for Government accommodation on 15.04.2008 and a quarter was allotted to him with effect from 25.04.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is eligible for payment of HRA from 16.01.2008 to 24.04.2008, the respondents have not paid the same. Hence, he filed O.A.No.188 of 2010 before the Tribunal, which in turn, dismissed the same. Again, the petitioner filed review application in R.A.No.32 of 2010 before the Tribunal and the same was also dismissed on 05.10.2010 stating that the Tribunal cannot review its order unless the error is apparent on the face of the record. Aggrieved by the same, he filed the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the respondents are paying HRA to other similarly situated persons in spite of availability of quarters, they are not paying the same to him, though he is eligible, and the Tribunal without considering the said aspect, dismissed the O.A as well as review filed by the petitioner. He submitted that as per SRO 149 Rule 16(5), allotment of Type III quarter would be made after the respondents advertise the same in the Factory Order or Estate Order. He also submitted that on issuance of advertisement by the respondents on 08.04.2008, the petitioner applied for and was allotted the quarter on 25.04.2008, and as such, he is entitled to draw HRA from the date of his joining i.e., 16.01.2008 till 24.04.2008. 4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondents, contended that without making any application for allotment of quarter within one month from the date of his joining, as per the instructions contained in SRO 149 Rule 16(2), the petitioner is claiming HRA. He submitted that since number of quarters is available for allotment, the petitioner is not eligible for HRA and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the O.A. as well as review. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. G.C.MANDAWAR[1] wherein it was held as under: “Grant of dearness allowance at a particular rate is, under Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules, a matter of grace and not a matter of right and hence, a claim against the Government for the grant of such allowance at a particular rate is not justifiable”. 5. As per Subsidiary Rules under F.R.44, Compensatory Allowances include House-Rent Allowances. F.R.44 reads as under: Compensatory Allowances:- Subject to the general rule that the amount of compensatory allowance should be so regulated that the allowance is not on the whole a source of profit to the recipient, the State Government may grant such allowances to any Government servant under its control and may make rules prescribing their amounts and the conditions under which they may be drawn”. 6. As per the instructions contained in SRO-149 Rule 16(2), dated 23.09.2004, an employee has to submit an application for allotment of quarter within one month from the date of joining duty. The petitioner in the instant case did not apply for allotment of quarter within the time prescribed in the said instructions and that only after rejection of his claim for HRA, on 30.03.2008, he applied for Government accommodation on 15.04.2008 and was allotted the quarter on 25.04.2008. The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to draw HRA from the date of his joining i.e., 16.01.2008 till allotment of quarter to him i.e. 24.04.2008. 7. A perusal of the material on record shows that number of quarters is available for allotment in Ordinance Factories Accommodation Estate, and therefore, the payment of HRA to the employees was stopped from July, 2005, as stated by the respondents. Though the petitioner stated that the other similarly situated persons were drawing HRA in spite of availability of quarters, he has not produced any material in support of the same. Further, the respondents pleaded that HRA is paid in terms of the executive instructions, but not as per the statutory instructions. In the above-cited judgment (1 supra), the Apex Court held that granting of allowances is a matter of grace and not a matter of right. 8. In view of the said principle laid down by the Apex Court, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has not submitted any application for allotment of quarter within one month from the date of his joining duty as per the instructions contained in SRO- 149 Rule 16(2), as observed by the Tribunal, and sufficient number of government accommodation is available for allotment, the petitioner is not entitled to claim HRA. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dismissing the review filed by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ___________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J Date:18.01.2011. sj [1] AIR 1954 SC 493