IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.20098 of 2007 Between: Government Junior Colleges, Redeployed Staff Association, Kadapa District Unit, Rep. by its President, A. Ramanjul Reddy, S/o. A. Pulla Reddy, Aged 48 years, Occ: Lecturer, Government Junior College Girls, Kadapa. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the memo No. 152/E-II-2/2007- 4, dated 18-6-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and consequential memo No.Admn.I.A-I/1412/2006, dated 31-8-2007 of the 2nd respondent in respect of redeployed staff are concerned as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to treat the members of the petitioner association equally in regard to HRA & CCA on par with the government staff and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.K.VENUGOPAL REDDY Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : WRIT PETITION No.20098 of 2007 & CONTEMPT CASE No.1242 of 2007 ORDER: W.P.No.20098 of 2007 This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring Memo No.152/IE.II-2/2007-4, dated 18-6-2007 issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential Memo No.Admn.I.A-1/1412/2006, dated 31-8- 2007 issued by the 2nd respondent insofar as it relates to redeployed staff as to non-payment of House Rent Allowance and City Compensatory Allowance on par with Government staff is concerned, as arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. Petitioner is Government Junior Colleges Redeployed Staff Association, Kadapa District Unit. According to it, certain staff members of Aided Junior Colleges were deployed to Government Junior Colleges due to abolition of sections and groups/closure of the colleges. The surplus staff of aided junior colleges at State level were deployed on ‘on duty basis’ to needy Government Junior Colleges with persons and the aided posts on surrendering to Government in 2005. The deployed staff were being paid salaries with HRA and CCA at the rates as admissible at place of duty for the past two years and grant-in-aid budget is being released regularly to that effect. The concerned Principals of the Colleges have been paying salary on par with other staff of the College. The Principals of the concerned Colleges have the powers to sanction leave, increments, making entries in the Service Register etc. Though the members of the petitioner-association are regular staff/aided, respondent No.1 issued the impugned Memo dated 18-6-2007 referring to G.O. (P) No.10, Finance (F.R.II) Department, dated 22-1-1993, wherein it is stated that the employees, who are ‘on duty’ from aided Colleges to Government Junior Colleges are not entitled for HRA & CCA on par with Government Lecturers. According to the petitioner, the said Memo was issued on the letter addressed by the 2nd respondent, without going through the G.Os issued from time to time. Further, respondent No.2 issued the impugned Memo dated 31-8-2007 stating that the deployed staff are entitled to HRA & CCA at the rates applicable to the place of parent College, where the deployed staff worked before they were deployed. In the impugned Memo dated 18-6-2007, a reference was made to G.O.(P) No.10, dated 22-1-1993, which clearly states that all the aided institutions’ staff are equally entitled for HRA & CCA on par with Government staff. Surprisingly, the 1st respondent issued the Memo discriminating the deployed staff. Basing on the Memo dated 18-6-2007 of the 1st respondent, the 2nd respondent issued Memo dated 31-8-2007 reiterating the same and informing the Regional Joint Director, Intermediate Education for necessary action. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner-association submitted a representation to the 2nd respondent requesting to permit the deployed staff to draw HRA & CCA at the rates applicable in the place of the work, but the 2nd respondent rejected the said representation basing on the Government Memo dated 18-6-2007. Therefore, the impugned Orders are arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. A detailed counter has been filed by the 1st respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner-association. It is stated that a review of the performance of aided junior colleges in the State has been taken up in the academic year 2005-06 and found that many aided junior colleges were functioning with poor and unviable student strength and without sufficient work load for the teaching and non-teaching staff. Thus, it was necessitated to create sufficient work load to the staff, who are working in the grant-in-aid posts to justify the payment of salaries by providing sufficient workload. Therefore, the staff found surplus in aided junior colleges were deployed on ‘on duty basis’ to many Government Junior Colleges, where there is dire need for the teaching faculty. Such deployment is not on a permanent basis and is likely to continue till there is actual need for the same. As and when the workload in the parent aided college increases, they would be brought back to the parent College. Further, the deployment will also enable the reduction in engaging faculty on contract basis and result in considerable saving of public funds. Many teaching and non-teaching staff of aided junior colleges, who were deployed to various Government Junior Colleges in Zones I,II and III, have submitted representations to the 2nd respondent to issue instructions to the respective District Treasuries to draw HRA and CCA at the rates they have actually drawn at their original (parent) stations, as the deployment is on the exigencies of administrative work and they were posted on ‘on duty basis’ only. In turn, respondent No.2 requested the Director of Treasuries and Accounts, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to issue instructions to all the District Treasury Officers/Sub- Treasury Officers to honour the claims of pay and allowances of deployed staff at the rates, which they were entitled in their parental institutions before deployment. Government in Memo No.13466/310/A1/PC.1/2006, dated 24-5-2006 called for information with regard to payment of salaries, allowing HRA & CCA according to parent college norms to the deployed staff working in Government Junior Colleges. Respondent No.2 submitted the information to the Government. In G.O.(P)No.230, Finance (PC-1) Department, dated 15- 9-2005 orders were issued prescribing the following three slabs of H.R.A. in PRC-2005 depending upon the population of the towns in Andhra Pradesh as per the recommendations of the High Power Committee: (i) 20% of basic pay (subject to ceiling of Rs.3,000/-) (ii) 12.5% of basic pay (subject to ceiling of Rs.3,000/-) (iii) 10% of basic pay (subject to ceiling of Rs.3,000/-) Further, vide G.O.(P) No.225, Finance and Planning (FW.PC.II) Department, dated 29-5-1993, orders were issued stating that the said HRA rates are applicable to teaching and non-teaching staff of aided institutions also. However, the staff found surplus in aided junior colleges located in the area covered by HRA at the rate of 10% and deployed to Government Junior College located in the area covered under 12.5% slab were demanding drawal of HRA applicable to the place of deployment, as it is higher to that of the parent institution/station, whereas the staff of aided junior colleges found surplus in the area covered under 20% HRA slab and deployed to a college located in a town covered under slab rate of 12.5% or 10% are demanding for drawal of HRA applicable to the parent college, as it is lower than that they have drawn at the parent institution/station. Staff of both sets are thus representing for claiming HRA, which is beneficial to them. In G.O.(P) No.10, dated 22-1-1993 orders were issued stating that the rate of HRA and other compensatory allowances are applicable to the place of duty, when a Government employee is on deputation in foreign service. However, employees, who are being deputed from aided colleges to Government Junior Colleges, are on ‘on duty basis’ and not on foreign service. Therefore, the members of the petitioner’s association are not being considered for drawal of the HRA/CCA at the rates applicable to the place of duty. Accordingly, a clarification was issued vide Government Memo No.151/1E-II(2)/2007-4, dated 18-6-2007 to that effect. The impugned Memo reiterates only the legal position enumerated in G.O.(P) No.10, dated 22-1-1993 and as such, challenging the Memo dated 18-6-2007 is of no benefit to the petitioner without challenging the said G.O. dated 22-1-1993. Petitioner- association is not entitled to draw HRA as per the rates in G.O.(P) No.10, dated 22-1-1993 and if any excess amounts are paid wrongly to the employees pending clarification from the Government, the same will not confer any legal right to them. In view of the above, orders issued in Memo dated 18-6-2007 would be of uniform application and would be just for all aided employees placed on ‘on duty basis’ in Government Junior Colleges. Heard both sides. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Lecturers working in Aided Junior Colleges when they are deployed to Government Junior Colleges, for whatever reason, are entitled to draw HRA and CCA as applicable to the place of working or not ? Admittedly, the members of the petitioner-association are all Lecturers in aided junior colleges and due to various reasons, they are deployed to work in Government Junior Colleges at different places. While they were working with the aided junior colleges, they were paid HRA and CCA as were applicable to the place of their working. The grievance of the petitioner-association is that its members are not being paid HRA and CCA on par with the staff of Government Junior Colleges where they are working on deployment (on duty basis). This appears to be unreasonable. HRA and CCA are fixed as per the classification of the town/city as per the cost of living and population of that particular place. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that its members are entitled for drawal of HRA and CCA on par with their colleagues in the Government Junior Colleges, where they are deployed, is untenable. Merely because the members of the petitioner-association are getting less percentage of HRA and CCA at the place of their appointment, i.e., aided junior colleges, that does not mean, they should get the same, even when they are deployed to a place or town where the percentage of HRA as fixed by the Government is more and is also being paid to other Lecturers in the very same College. The impugned Memo dated 18-6-2007 simply says that G.O. (P) No.10, Finance (FR.II) Department, dated 22-1-1993 is applicable only in case of deputation to foreign service and not in a case of this nature. In the impugned Memo dated 31-8-2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner- association has requested to draw HRA at the rates applicable to the place of working instead of parent institutions from where they were deployed. It was clarified that as per the Orders of the Government issued vide Memo dated 18-6-2007 HRA and CCA shall be calculated at the rates applicable to the place of parent college where the employee worked before deployment. Except this, there is no further clarification issued. It appears, two sets of employees have represented for drawal of HRA, i.e. those who are drawing 20% HRA at the place of their parent college, when they were deployed to other town/city, where the percentage of HRA and CCA were less than what they were drawing at their parent place, and those who are deployed to a place where higher percentage of HRA and CCA was fixed. The first group claim, what they were claiming in their parent college and the second group claim, what they are entitled at the present working place. It is true that HRA and CCA are fixed on cost index/population basis. Therefore, I am of the opinion that denying the claim of the members of the petitioner-association for payment of HRA and CCA on par with their colleagues in the Government Junior Colleges where they are deployed, cannot be said to be either unreasonable or arbitrary. What was being paid towards HRA in a ‘C’ class city cannot be allowed to be paid, when a Lecturer is deployed to a Government Junior College of ‘A’ Class city, may be on ‘on duty basis’. HRA and CCA as applicable to the Government Lecturer in the very same junior college cannot be denied to a deployed junior lecturer. Denial of such benefit on the ground that G.O.(P)No.10, dated 22-1-1993 permits only payment of such allowance to those who are in foreign service and not on deputation is not correct. Very object of payment of HRA and CCA is to meet the price index, cost of living etc.; therefore, the respondents could not have discriminated the members of the petitioner-association for payment of HRA and CCA with that of the Government Junior College Lecturers, where the members of the petitioner-association are working. Therefore, the impugned Memo issued by the 1st respondent and the consequential Memo issued by the 2nd respondent are arbitrary and illegal; as such, they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned Memos are set aside and the respondents are directed to extend the benefits of HRA and CCA as are applicable to the Government Junior College Lecturers in the very same College, where the members of the petitioner-association are deployed, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. CONTEMPT CASE No.1242 of 2007 In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition itself, no further orders need be passed in the contempt case. Hence, the contempt case is closed. 31-3-2008 prk