- (1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.7.2012 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.3509 of 1991 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that prior to resolution dated 2.5.1991 passed by respondent No.1 Taluka Development Officer, the teachers who were paid basic pay of Rs.1500/- were getting Rs.450/- House Rent Allowance ("HRA" for short) and Rs.50/- Compensatory Local Allowance ("CLA" for short) per month. Similarly, the teachers who were receiving their salaries less than the basic pay of Rs.1500/- per month were being paid Rs.250/- as HRA and Rs.35/- as CLA per month. It is the case of the appellant that by virtue of the impugned resolution dated 2.5.1991 passed by respondent No.1 Taluka Development Officer, the benefits of HRA and CLA given to the teachers, as aforesaid, have been taken away arbitrarily. Being aggrieved, the appellant original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.3509 of 1991. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 25.7.2012 which is impugned in the present appeal.
(3.) The main grievance of the appellant original petitioner in the writ petition was that respondent No.1 Taluka Development Officer illegally and arbitrarily passed the resolution by which the benefits of HRA and CLA paid to the members of the appellant Sangh have been ordered to be stopped and consequently, recovery was sought to be effected. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr.V.A.Vyas for the appellant, learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Mr.Harsheel Shukla, learned AGP for respondent No.2 3. Learned advocate Mr.V.A.Vyas for the appellant has vehemently contended that the action of respondent No.1 is illegal and arbitrary which takes away the benefits of HRA and CLA conferred upon the members of the appellant. He further submitted that consequential action of recovery pursuant to the resolution dated 2.5.1991 is also in violation of the principles of natural justice as the members of the appellant have not been given opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned resolution. He submitted that the members of the appellant are working in classified villages within the periphery of 8 kms from the municipal limits of the urban city. He further submitted that as per the policy of the Government as contained in Government Resolutions dated 22.10.1975, 15.12.1975 and 1.9.1978, the Government employees whose place of duty is in the proximity of a classified city and who of necessity have to reside within the city may be granted HRA admissible in that city provided that the distance between the place of duty and periphery of the municipal limits of the classified cities does exceed 8 kms and since the members of the appellant were complying with the conditions specified in the said Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975, they were paid HRA after having been sanctioned by the competent authority. 3.1 Mr.Vyas further submitted that during the period of 1990-1991, objection was raised during the audit by the authority concerned and in pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 2.5.1991. In his submission, when the members of the appellant were working within the periphery of 8 kms from the municipal limit of urban city and they were complying the requisite conditions stipulated in Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the same. Lastly, Mr.Vyas submitted that the impugned order dated 2.5.1991 as well as the judgment and order dated 25.7.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.3509 of 1991 are required to be quashed.;