(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7161 OF 2011 Loknete Amdar Kai. M.N. Rajput @ Thansing Jibhau Shikshan Prasrak Mandal PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. B.R. Warma, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court raising twofold grievances. Firstly, that though the employees working in Respondent No. 5 School are not residing at the headquarters and though the Management had not submitted the bills for their House Rent Allowance (H.R.A.) and Travelling Allowance (T.A.), the Education Officer has granted (2) the said allowances to the employees working in respondent No. 5 School. 2. Secondly, Shri Waramaa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that since there are no appropriate Rules regarding grant or refusal of H.R.A. and T.A. to the employees of private schools, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to frame the Rules. 3. In so far as the first grievance in respect of grant of H.R.A. and T.A. is concerned, nothing is placed before us to show that the employees working in private schools who are not residing at the headquarters, are not entitled to H.R.A. and T.A. In that view of the matter, there is no substance in the first contention. 4. As far as the second aspect as regards prayer clause (C) is concerned, it is for the Executive and the Legislature to make appropriate Rules in that respect. We do not possess any advisory jurisdiction to advise either to the Executive or the Legislature to frame the Rules in (3) that regard. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to consider that prayer also. 5. The Writ Petition is, therefore, rejected. [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] npj/wp7161-11