Krishna Chetty v. The Government of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 3.7.2008CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN W.P.No.27691 of 2006 (T)O.A.No.2056 of 19961. Krishna Chetty2. G.Josehin Isebella3. P.Vijayal4. C.Karunakaran5. R.Indirani6. S.P.Aswath Narayana7. N.Jayammal8. N.Jayaraman9. M.Venkatesan .. Petitioners vs. 1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary Finance (Pay cell) Department Fort St.George, Madras-92. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu Anna Salai, Madras3. The Deputy Director of Health Services Krishnagiri .. RespondentsThis writ petition is filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ ofCertiorari to call for the records in pursuant to the impugned orderof recovery passed by the third respondent in proceedingsNa.Ka.No.4115/A2/94, dated 2.2.1996 quash the same so far as thepetitioners are concerned only. For petitioner : Mr.S.M.Subramaniam For Respondents : Mr.T.Sreenivasan Government Advocate https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E RIt is submitted that the petitioners have been employed invarious capacities, under the control of the third respondent, atKrishnagiri. Krishnagiri is a Municipal Area classified as Grade-IIIfor the purpose of House Rent Allowance. The Government of Tamil Naduhad passed G.O.Ms.No.1167, Finance (Allowance-II), dated 28.8.1974.It has been stated in the said Government Order that, since a largenumber of District Offices are still functioning at Krishnagiri, thestaff working in the various offices at Krishnagiri are permitted todraw the house rent allowance at 8% of their pay which is permissiblefor Grade-II. Thus, Krishnagiri was designated as Grade-II for thepurpose of house rent allowance.2. It has also been stated that the Government of Tamil Nadu hadpassed G.O.Ms.No.772, Finance (Pay Cell), dated 22.9.1986. The saidGovernment order was passed with the recommendations of the 'One ManCommittee' enlarging the scope and upgradation of certain places foreligibility for house rent allowance. In the said Government order,it was stated that the places around the Grade-II Towns at adistance not exceeding 8 kms. from the town limits, should be takenfor giving house rent allowance as admissible at Grade-II places andif the radius of 8 kms. falls within a part of the panchayat union,the entire panchayat union shall be taken for the purpose of givinghouse rent allowance as admissible to Grade-II places. 3. As per the Government order in G.O.Ms.No.772, the Collectorof Dharmapuri District had passed an order, dated 6.8.1987,instructing the offices of Kaveripattinam panchayat union area todraw the increased rate of house rent allowance of Grade-II municipalarea of Krishnagiri Municipality. As per the instructions of theDistrict Collector increased rate of house rent allowance was paid tothe offices situated in Kaveripattinam panchayat union area. 4. It has been further stated that Krishnagiri was classified inG.O.Ms.No.1209, Finance, dated 19.11.1990. Thus, there was aprocedural delay on the part of the Government to declare Krishnagirias Grade-II place for the purpose of house rent allowance. In suchcircumstances, though the second respondent had raised the auditobjections regarding the payment of house rent allowance during theyear 1991-1992, the impugned order of recovery has been passed by thethird respondent in proceedings Na.Ka.No.4115/A2/94, dated 22.2.1996,after a lapse of five years.5. No reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of therespondents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner hadsubmitted that the impugned order of the third respondent, dated22.2.1996, has been passed without prior notice having been given tothe petitioners. No opportunity was granted to the petitioners to putforth their cases before the order of recovery was passed by thethird respondent. In accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1167, Finance(Allowances-II) Department, dated 28.8.1974, issued by the Governmentof Tamil Nadu, the staff working in the various Government Offices atKrishnagiri were permitted to draw the house rent allowance at 8% oftheir pay which was permissible for Grade-II places. The Governmenthad also passed G.O.Ms.No.772, Finance (Pay Cell), dated 22.8.1986,with the recommendations of the 'One Man Committee' enlarging thescope and upgradation of certain places for eligibility for houserent allowance. Based on the said order, the Collector of DharmapuriDistrict had passed an order, dated 6.8.1987, instructing the officesof Kaveripattinam panchayat union area to draw the increased rate ofhouse rent allowance of Grade-II municipal area of KrishnagiriMunicipality. As per the instructions of the District Collector,increased rate of house rent allowance was paid to the officessituated in Kaveripattinam panchayat union. In such circumstances,the impugned order passed by the third respondent to recover theamounts paid as house rent allowance is arbitrary and illegal andvoid. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents had neitherplaced the records, relating to the matter, before this Court nor hashe shown sufficient cause or reason to sustain the impugned orderpassed by the third respondent for recovering the house rentallowance paid to them. No proper reasons are shown to have beenexisting for the third respondent to pass the impugned order, dated22.2.1996, to recover the house rent allowance paid to thepetitioners. It is seen from the the Government order inG.O.Ms.No.772, dated 22.8.1986, that the Collector of DharmapuriDistrict, had passed an order, dated 6.8.1987, instructing theoffices of Kaveripattinam panchayat union area to draw the increasedrate of house rent allowance of Grade-II municipal area ofKrishnagiri Municipality. It is only based on such instructions ofthe District Collector, Dharmapuri District, increased rate of houserent allowance had been paid to the offices situated inKaveripattinam panchayat union area. It is also seen that there hasbeen a procedural delay on the part of the Government to declareKrishnagiri as Grade-II place for the purpose of house rent allowanceas it has been so classified only in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1209,Finance, dated 19.11.1990. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be madeliable for their increased rate of house rent allowance paid to them.Further, there was no fraud or misrepresentation by the petitionersbased on which such payments have been made. By an interim order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ passed by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal the impugned orderhad been stayed and the said order has been in force till date. Insuch circumstances, the impugned order of the third respondent, dated22.2.1996, is quashed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst. RegistrarlanTo:1. The Secretary The Government of Tamil Nadu Finance (Pay cell) Department Fort St.George, Madras-92. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu Anna Salai, Madras3. The Deputy Director of Health Services Krishnagiri1 cc To The Government Pleader,High Court, Madras-104, SR.34802W.P.No.27691 of 2006 (T)O.A.No.2056 of 1996SGL (CO)SMK/14.7.08