- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Amit Sthalekar for respondents No. 2 and 3. With the argument of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been heard finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage and is being decided.
(2.) AN association namely, Dewwani Karmchari Sangh U. P, Kanpur Dehat through its President has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 1. 4. 2008, passed by District Judge, Kanpur Dehat and dated 22. 2. 2008 issued by the State Government whereby it has held that employees of Judgeship Kanpur Dehat are not entitled for any City Compensatory Allowance (in short 'cca') and House ' Rent Allowance (in short 'hra') at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under: Sometimes in the year 1985 a new Judgeship "kanpur Dehat" was created by carvirig out certain areas from Kanpur and Kanpur itself was renamed as "kanpur Nagar". Due to lack of infrastructure etc. in Kanpur Dehat, District Judgeship was actually established in Kanpur Nagar, that too in the vicinity of the Judgeship of Kanpur Nagar and since then it is continuously functioning there. Both the Judge-ships are across the road in Kanpur Nagar. Employees of Judgeship Kanpur Dehat are actually residing in nearby areas in Kanpur Nagar. The facility of HRA and CCA has been extended to the Government em ployees through various Government Orders (In short 'go. ' ). Government Order dated 15. 12. 1981 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) provides that HRA shall be paid to all such Government servants who are posted in cities mentioned in Annexure-1 within their municipal limits or within 8 Km. of distance outside the municipal limits. Consequently, the employees of District Judgeship Kanpur Dehat were also paid H. R. A. under the GO. dated 15. 12. 1981. Similarly, they were also paid CCA admissible at Kanpur Nagar in accordance with relevant Government Orders. However, one Additional District Judge posted in Kanpur Dehat Judgeship who was not paid CCA at the rates admissible in Kanpur Nagar sent a representation to the State Government claiming CCA. at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar. The same was declined by the State Govern-ment vide order dated 22. 2. 2008 holding that Governmen. t employees posted in Kanpur Dehat are not entitled for CCA. In the light of the said decision of the Government, the District Judge constituted a committee of four Judicial Officers which submitted its report on 28. 3. 2008 holding that neither CCA. is payable to Class III and Class IV employees of District Judge ship of Kanpur Dehat nor they are entitled to H. R. A. at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar and further ttie amount already paid under the two heads to such employees is liable to be recovered. The said report in respect of CCA and HRA has been accepted by District Judge vide order dated 1. 4. 2008 although on some other aspects he has required some clarification from the committee. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decisiqn of District Judge denying CCA and HRA as admissible at Kanpur Nagar and recovery there of.
(3.) SRI Ojha learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since District Judgeship, Kanpur Dehat is functioning at Kanpur Nagar itself, mere nomenclature of the Judgeship would not render the petitioners ineligible or disentitle for CCA and HRA at the rates admissible for the place where the peti tioners are actually working. He further submitted that the decision taken by the Committee is wholly erroneous and on account of misreading of various G. O. , therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside. Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted ' that in view of the decision taken by the State Government that employees posted in the District, Judgeship of Kanpur Dehat are not entitled for CCA or HRA admis sible to employees of Kanpur City, the matter was examined by the District Judge and in view of the report submitted by the Committee constituted by him, it was found that the petitioners are not entitled to HRA and CCA admissible to Kanpur Nagar. He thus-submitted that for reasons stated in the report of the Committee which is on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, the petitioners are not entttted (o any relief and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Stand-ing Counsel also adopted the same arguments.;