Civil Writ Petition NO.15041 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition NO.15041 of 1989 Date of Order: 25.04.2011 K.L.Jhamb, Private Secretary ...Petitioner Versus The Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board , Sector-27 Chandigarh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Mohunta, AAG, Punjab for the respondent. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.10.1989, Annexure P-14, passed by the Managing Director, Punjab Water Supply & Sewerage Board, Chandigarh, withdrawing HRA and directing the petitioner to repay the amount of HRA. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the rules do not prohibit the petitioner from receiving HRA, merely because his wife was working as a teacher in the State of Haryana. The petitioner's wife was on deputation with the Chandigarh Administration. The rules framed by the Chandigarh Administration permit both spouses to receive HRA. It is also Civil Writ Petition NO.15041 of 1989 -2- prayed that in case this Court arrives at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to HRA, the amount received by the petitioner under a bonafide belief as to his right should not be recovered in view of the ratio of judgment in Budh Ram and others v. State of Haryana and others, 2009(3) S.C.T., 333. Counsel for the State of Punjab, however, submits that the rules framed by the State of Punjab do not permit the petitioner to draw HRA as his wife was living in government accommodation, the writ petition should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and find no reason to issue the writ as prayed for. The petitioner, admittedly, is living in government accommodation allotted to his wife and, therefore, is not entitled to the HRA in accordance with instructions issued by the State of Punjab. It, however, appears that the petitioner received HRA under a bonafide belief as to his entitlement and a lack of knowledge of relevant instructions. In this view of the matter and while dismissing the writ petition, it is ordered that the amount already received by the petitioner shall not be recovered as held by a Full Bench of this Court in Budh Ram's case (supra). No order as to costs. April 25, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE