1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA W.P.(MD)No.11798 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 S.Sudalaimuthu ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry (Veterinary) Department, O/o. Animal Husbandry (Veterinary) Department, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Commissioner, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Central Office, Chennai- 600 006. 3. The Accountant General, O/o. Accountant General, Teynampet,Chennai- 600 018. ... Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order Na.Ka.No.779/A/07 dated 10.11.2010 passed by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct these respondents 1 and 2 to pay the House Rent allowances, to this petitioner, for the period from 22.05.1998 to 30.06.2000, in the light of G.O.(Per) No.85, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA5) Department dated 22.05.1998 and as per the judgment passed in W.P.No.9675 of 2008 and W.P.No.9676 of 2008 dated 21.09.2010 within a time frame, by this Court. For Petitioner : Mr.F.X.Eugene For R1 and R2 : Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, Additional Govt. Pleader For R3 : Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Central Govt. Standing counsel O R D E R The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent, the Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry (Veterinary) Department, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District in Na.Ka.No.779/A/07 dated 10.11.2010 and to quash the same as illegal with the consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the House Rent allowance to him for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 period from 22.05.1998 to 30.06.2000, in the light of G.O.(Per) No.85, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MA5) Department dated 22.05.1998 and also in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(MD).Nos.9675 and 9676 of 2008 dated 21.09.2010, within a specified time limit. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner after serving as Live Stock Inspector Grade-I in the office of the Animal Husbandry in the town Cinthamani from 22.05.1998 to 30.06.2000 which is situated within the Puliangudi Municipality in Sivagiri Taluk, Tirunelveli District, retired from service 30.06.2000, on reaching the age of superannuation. Originally, the town Pulangudi Municipality was classified as Grade-III Municipality. By G.O.(Per)No.85 Municipal Administration and Water Distribution (Municipal Administration-5) Department, dated 22.05.1998, the Tamil Nadu Government declared the Puliangudi Municipality by upgrading it into Grade-II Municipality. Before the issuance of G.O.(Per).No.85, the Tamil Nadu Government has issued the previous G.O.Ms.No.772 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.08.1986 and as per the said G.O.Ms.No.772, the belt areas around 8 k.ms. from Grade-II Municipality were made eligible for house rent allowance. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is, since the Puliangudi Municipality itself has become a Grade-II Municipality, as per the G.O.(Per).No.85 dated 22.05.1998, the employees, who were working within the jurisdiction of Puliangudi Municipality were eligible to get the house rent allowance. 3. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when a similar issue has arisen in W.P.(MD). Nos.9675 and 9676 of 2008, this Court by order dated 21.09.2010, held that all the Government servants working within the jurisdiction of Vasudevanallur which is coming within the Punliangudi Municipality Grade-II are entitled to get the benefit of house rent allowance. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner relying heavily on the above said G.O.(Per).No.85 dated 22.05.1998 and the order passed by this Court in the above mentioned Writ Petitions, prayed for allowing the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.T.R.Janarthanan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the case of the petitioner would be considered for the year 2010-2011, but in any event, since the respondents in the present Writ Petition was also the contesting respondents in the earlier Writ Petitions, when the Court passed an order on 21.09.2010, they are bound by the order passed by this Court as the said order till date was not challenged by way of appeal. In this context, it is relevant to refer to paragraph Nos.8 and 9, which is given as under: "8. The impugned order dated 30.07.2008 came to be passed by the first respondent after the date of retirement of both petitioners A.Kadarkarai and G.Ramasamy since they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 retired from service on 30.09.2003 and 31.03.2004. Even before these two writ petitioners retired from service on the above mentioned respective dates, they were allowed to enjoy the benefits of House Rent Allowance by the respondent on the basis that the place of work namely, Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union is coming with the jurisdiction of Puliangudi Municipality Grade-II which was also upgraded from Municipality Grade III to Grade II by G.O.No.85 dated 22.05.1998. That apart, even the District Collector has also in his proceedings dated 06.10.2005 expressly mentioned that all the Panchayat Union staff working in Vasudevanallur Panchayat Union are entitled to get the benefit of House Rent allowance. More over, the very same District Collector passed another proceedings dated 25.10.2005 stating that all the Government servants working within the jurisdiction of Vasudevanallur which is coming within Puliangudi Municipality Grade II are entitled to get the benefit of House Rent Allowance. Only on the basis of above mentioned proceedings, the respondent also granted the benefit of House Rent Allowance and the petitioners were allowed to enjoy the benefit of House Rent Allowance till their retirement on reaching superannuation. While so, when the respondent allowed the benefit of House Rent Allowance to the petitioners without any representation made by the petitioners, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no misrepresentation or fraud made for the purpose of getting the benefit of House Rent Allowance from the respondent. Therefore, when there is no misrepresentation made by the petitioners as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sahim Ram vs. State of Haryana and others reported in 1995 Supp (1) supreme Court Cases 18. The impugned order seeking to recover the House Rent Allowance already paid to the petitioners cannot be sought to be recovered without any prior notice. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not given any opportunity before the impugned order was passed. On that basis, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and the same is set aside. No costs. 9. It is also necessary to mention that the Government servants are entitled to get the benefit of House Rent Allowance. It is also supported by the proceedings of the District Collector, Tirunelveli. Therefore, it is not open to the respondent No.2 to pass impugned order seeking to recover the so called excess amount that were paid when the petitioners were in service." 5. When I have dealt with a similar issue, as above holding that all the Government servants working within the jurisdiction of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 Puliangudi Municipality Grade-II are entitled to get the benefit of house rent allowance, I have no hesitation to allow the Writ Petition, on the basis of the earlier order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, by setting aside the impugned order with the consequential direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to pay the house rent allowance for the period from 22.05.1998 to 30.06.2000 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry (Veterinary) Department, O/o. Animal Husbandry (Veterinary) Department, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District. 2. The Commissioner, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Central Office, Chennai- 600 006. 3. The Accountant General, O/o. Accountant General, Teynampet, Chennai- 600 018. +1cc to Mr.F.X.Eugene, Advocate, Sr.No.42787 +1cc to Mr.P.Gunasekaran, Advocate, Sr.No.42743 +one cc to Special Government Pleader, Sr.No. 42899 akv SMA/03.01.2012/7C/4P W.P.(MD)No.11798 of 2011 07.12.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/