CM NO.3156/2009 & 1 CWP NO.16468 OF 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 20.2.2009 Shiv Charanjit Puri and others ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab & Others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.T.P.S.Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) CM NO.3156/2009 With the consent of the counsel, this petition is taken up today for final disposal. CM disposed of. CWP NO.16468 OF 2000 The short controversy involved in this petition is that although the petitioners are residing at the Canal Colony situated in Village Peeran Wala and Hussaini Wala, District Ferozepure, they are not being granted the benefit of Rural Area Allowance as per instructions dated 9.1.1998 (Annexure P-1). Reply has been filed by respondents no.1 and 2. The respondents are denying the benefit of Rural Area Allowance to the CM NO.3156/2009 & 2 CWP NO.16468 OF 2000 petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are residing in Colony of the Department situated in Revnue Estate of Villages Peeranwala and Hussaini, and the Department has provided some special facilities to its employees which are normally available in town/urban areas. However, it is not disputed that the instructions (Annexure P-1) whereby Rural Area allowance is admissible to the employees residing in rural areas, is in vogue and the petitioners are residing in Rural Areas. It is necessary to reproduce the relevant extract of instructions (Annexure P-1) as under:- “I am directed to say that after careful consideration of the recommendations of the Fourth Punjab Pay Commission, on the subject cited above, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to sanctioned revised basic pay w.e.f. 1.9.1997. The Rural Area Allowance shall be admissible only to those employees who are posted in Rural Areas (i.e. in villages and not in the cities/towns/NACs).....” A perusal of the above instructions makes it clear that the pre- requisite condition for grant of Rural Area Allowance is that employees must be residing in Villages. In the present case, as noticed earlier, it is not disputed that the petitioners are residing in Village, although in the colony of the Department. The instructions do not deprive such employee of the grant of Rural Area Allowance who is residing in the Colony of the Department in Villages. The respondents cannot be allowed to carve out an exception that the petitioners are residing in the Colony of the Department and they are providing all the facilities in the Villages. Such exception is not carved out in the instructions (Annexure P-1). In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to CM NO.3156/2009 & 3 CWP NO.16468 OF 2000 respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of instructions (Annexure P-1) and if found eligible, grant them the benefits of Rural Area allowance, in accordance with law within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 20.2.2009 MFK CM NO.3156/2009 & 4 CWP NO.16468 OF 2000