THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 27881 of 1996 O R D E R: 15 petitioners herein are working in various Departments of the State Government. They have been allotted Governmental residential accommodation corresponding to their entitlement. Petitioners 1 to 4 have been allotted B-type quarters, while Petitioners 5 to 15 have been allotted C-type quarters and all these quarters were situated at Erramanjil Colony, Hyderabad city. The petitioners challenge in this Writ Petition the decision to collect standard rent at the flat rate of 10% of their emoluments including basic pay + city compensatory allowance + special pay. The case of the petitioners is that as soon as a Government servant is allotted a Governmental residential quarter, for his occupation, he would not be entitled to be paid House Rent Allowance. For Government servants, who are stationed in Hyderabad and Secunderabad twin cities, the House Rent Allowance admissible is 20% of their pay. Thus, they would not be entitled to be paid this 20% of House Rent Allowance. Apart from this, they are undoubtedly liable to be charged some licence fee or standard rent towards the permission accorded to them to occupy the Governmental accommodation, but what they are trying to object to is, collecting the same at a flat rate of 10%. Illustratively, they have taken the salary at the relevant point of time of Petitioner No.3 Sri P. Ekambaram, who was working as a Personal Secretary to one of the Judges attached to this Court and who has been allotted B type quarter. His basic pay was Rs.5,200/- and he was paid city compensatory allowance (CCA) of Rs.150/- per month and Special Pay of Rs.250/-. Thus, put together, it came to Rs.5,600/-. 10% of this would work out to Rs.560/-, whereas the same was compared to that of another employee who has been allotted I.S. quarter in the same locality, to whom the standard rent was fixed as Rs.68/-. Thus, for a corresponding quarter with lesser amenities provided, the petitioners were charged at a flat rate of 10% of their salary and other allowances, while for the others, who have been allotted quarters with better facilities, are charged standard rent at the rate of Rs.68/- per month. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is plainly unjust for two reasons; 1) if the State Government has already stopped paying the House Rent Allowance at the rate of 20% of the salary and allowances to such of those employees, who have been allotted Governmental residential accommodation, the State Government is only liable to charge on equitable basis a rent or licence fee for the accommodation made available for occupation of the Government servants. Hence, the method of fixing “standard rent” has been devised. The State Government is therefore, liable to fix standard rent for each type of Governmental accommodation taking into account and consideration the amenities and facilities that are provided therein; 2) nextly, the State Government is not carrying on the operations of leasing out their properties based upon any commercial principles. Therefore, uniform rates should be adopted to all the occupants of Government quarters. These quarters, no doubt, have been constructed by the State Government at a huge expense. They are also being maintained periodically, but the fact remains that this is a facility, which has been accorded to the Government servants to make sure that they will not have to suffer the dictates of the owners of private accommodation and thus, come under pressure on their minds during the tenure of employment. Further, Government servants also cannot be made to pay large amounts of their salary and allowances towards rents normally charged by the owners of the private accommodations, who only get propelled by commercial principles. Keeping these principles in mind, the learned counsel would contend that standard rent should be devised for being collected from the Government servants, who have been allocated the quarters, depending upon the amenities and facilities, which are commonly made available. The State Government was not reasonably applying uniform standards in the matter of fixation of the standard rent. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn my attention to the policy decision announced by the State Government through their G.O.(P) No. 20, Finance & Planning Department, dated 19th January 1994, wherein the State Government has cancelled its earlier orders contained in G.O.Ms.No. 355, Finance & Planning (FW:PC-II) Department, dated 19th October 1993 and ordered that the recovery of the rent in respect of Government quarters allotted to Government employees shall be the “standard rent” as fixed in accordance with F.R.45-A-IV(b) or 10% of the emoluments whichever is less. Therefore, the learned counsel would urge that the State Government must first fix the standard rent in terms of F.R. 45-A- IV(b) and then, if the same is less than 10% of the basic pay and other allowances of the employee concerned, the State Government must collect only that amount which is known as standard rent. Instead, they should not resort to collection of 10% of the basic pay and other allowances flatly as a matter of routine. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn my attention to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 24th June 2004 in Writ petition No. 14057 of 1994, wherein, the learned Judge has pointed out that the petitioner shall submit a detailed representation furnishing all the relevant material to substantiate the claim for fixing the standard rent for the particular type of quarter, which is under her occupation and then the State Government shall consider and pass appropriate orders thereon. Heard the learned Government Pleader for General Administration, who opposed grant of any relief to the petitioners. It is more than clear that in terms of FR 45-A-IV(b) the State Government is required to fix the standard rent for each type of accommodation allotted by it in favour of its servants. Then, if the same is less than 10% of the salary and other allowances admissible to the employee concerned, the standard rent alone must be collected, as per the policy decision taken by it, as noticed supra. If, on the other hand, the standard rent payable for the accommodation under occupation of a particular Government servant is more than 10% of his basic pay and other allowances, then, it is not the standard rent which should be collected, but at the flat rate of 10% of pay. This entire exercise pre-supposes fixation of standard rent first. The State Government while fixing the standard rent will take into account such reasonable factors, such as the amenities and facilities provided by it to the respective type of quarters. They will also go by the norm of fixing the standard rent for various types of quarters situate in the same area/locality by adopting uniform standards. Without this exercise being complete, it will not be proper for the State Government to fall back upon the option of collecting 10% of their basic pay and other allowances as that is an easy method to do so. The State Government is, therefore, under an obligation to determine the standard rent payable by each of the petitioners herein for the respective type of quarters which is under their occupation at Erramanjil locality and communicate the same to them. If the writ petitioners are liable to pay anything more than what has already been paid by them, the State Government would pass an appropriate order granting them a reasonable time to liquidate such a liability. If, on the other hand, the petitioners have already paid the amount, which is reasonable, the State Government will perhaps waive the obligation of the petitioners to pay any further amount. This order is passed particularly in view of the fact that 90% of the petitioners have retired from service and they have also surrendered the quarters under their occupation and obtained the necessary clearance certificate in that respect. The remaining petitioners have also vacated the quarters in their occupation and they were shifted to other localities. Therefore, the respondent –State Government is directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is also open to the individual writ petitioners to make available such material, as is considered by them, as would help the State Government to take the right decision in the matter. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 7th December 2009 ksld