J.V. Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of the present writ petition No. 8534 of 1988 and a bunch of connected writ petitions No. 8535, 8536, 8537, 8453, 8514, 8527, 8528, 8546, 8560, 8619, 8677, 8713, 8879, 9975, 10519, 10520, 11801, 11586, 10697 of 1988, 953, 3117, 8137, 8130, 7993, 8284, 8346, 8446, 8024, 8310, 7714, 7771, 8193, 8035, 8186, 8260, 8425, 9384, 9385, 9423, 8286, 8222, 13007, 13027, 13053, 13054, 13067, 13218, 13301, 13314, 13328, 13352, 13431 and 6266 of 1989, in which the challenge has been made to the order in Annexure P/3 dated 30th August, 1988 granting rural area allowance and the order in Annexure P/4 dated 30th August, 1988 granting of House Rent Allowance by the Government of Punjab in pursuance of the recommendations of Third Punjab Pay Commission.
(2.) THE Third Pay Commission was appointed, - -vide Notification dated (sic) July, 1986 under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice C.G. Suri, a retired Judge of this Court. One of the terms of reference was to examine the variety of allowances and benefits which are presently available to the employees in addition to pay and to suggest rationalization and simplification thereof with a view to promoting efficiency in administration. The Commission examined the suggestions received from Various Associations/Unions of the employees as (sic) in Clause 14.8, thereof which reads as under: We have examined the suggestions received from various association/Unions of the employees with regard to grant of House Rent Allowance. Certain Associations have suggested that House Rent Allowance should be paid as percentage of the revised basic pay. The rates suggested range between 10 per cent to 30 percent. Certain others have suggested that the House Rent Allowance should be granted to the State Government employees on the Central Pattern. Several other have, however, generally suggested for a suitable enhancement of the House Rent Allowance in view of the increased rents in various cities and towns. There is no denying the fact that the rents for residential accommodation in various cities/towns have risen very high in the last 7 -8 years. There is an increasing pressure of population on the urban accommodation because of the rapid expansion of industries and the consequent migration of surplus agricultural labour force from the villages to the towns. We find an adequate justification for a suitable enhancement of the House Rent Allowance for all the cities/towns. It is not possible for the Government to provide Government accommodation to all the employees in the State because of the constraint of resources and heavy expenditure involved in such a venture. It is an accepted reality that a large percentage of the employees shall have to arrange for suitable accommodation on rent for themselves and the Government will have to compensate them by granting them House Rent Allowance at the rates which should be adequate enough to enable them to hire suitable accommodation by contributing their own share from their emoluments. The matter was further examined in view of the pattern of House Rent Allowance in some other States as well. Ultimately, the Commission recommended to the State Government as under: 14.18 At present, entitlement of House Rent Allowance of an employee is determined on the basis of his place of posting, But there is a stipulation that he is required to give a certificate initially (and probably at the time of change of slab) regarding the rent he is paying and the place where the residence is located. Theoretically, therefore, an employee who is not able to give a certificate that he stays at the place of posting or within the specified distance -normally 8 Kms. would not be entitled to payment of House Rent Allowance. It is however well known that the production of this certificate is simply a ritual and a large number of employees are actually staying at places other than those as shown in the certificates. It is also not possible to control this aspect on a regular basis because submission of a regular receipt etc. has been (albeit for good reasons) done away with. We feel that in the context of fast means of communication available today, the permissible distance (of 8 Kms.) from the place of posting is outdated, and is without influencing the choice of employees, regarding place of residence, instrumental in the, employees submitting and the Government receiving (mostly) bogus certificates. We recommend that the employees' should be permitted House Rent Allowance on the basis of the place of posting and the certificate should be treated only as information regarding the employee's residential address, It is for Government to take suitable administrative measures to ensure that the employees are available when required for official work. 14.19 The existing facility of grant of House Rent Allowance admissible at places falling within 8 Kms of Ist and 2nd class cities at par with the respective city rates does not appear to be logical or rational. It is administratively inappropriate to provide this concession because the Government should as far as possible encourage people to stay in villages if they are posted there, but now it pro -vides positive incentive to them to keep on staying in urban areas even if they may be posted in villages. We are, therefore, of the view that this concession to places situated within 8 Kms. should be done away with and employees in this category should be paid House Rent Allowance/rural area allowance as the case may be at the rates as are admissible for their place of posting. 14.20 It has been urged before us by most of the associations/unions of employees that both husband and wife, who are Government employees and posted at the same station, should be made eligible for the grant of House Rent Allowance. Example of State of Haryana has been cited in this regard. The existing instructions of the State Government provide that where both husband and wife are in Government service the House Rent Allowance may be allowed to both spouses where they have to reside separately due to long distance between the places of posting or where the spouses are living separately because of estrangement between them even though they may not have actually been separated legally. We are not in favour of making any modification in the existing instructions on the subject as where both husband and wife are to live in the same premises, there is absolutely no justification in treating them as separate units for the purpose of grant of House Rent Allowance. Prior to the orders Annexures P/3 and P/4 dated 30th August, 1988, no rural area allowance as such was being paid to the employees but only House Rent Allowance was being paid - -vide Annexure P/1 dated 11th September, 1965 and later on, - -vide Annexure P/2 dated 15th March, 1973. Thereunder eligibility for House Rent Allowance was to be determined with reference to the place of duty. Any Government employee whose place of duty falls within the qualifying limits of any of the cities eligible for House Rent Allowance or within five miles (8 Kms.) from the qualifying limits of such cities was eligible for House Rent Allowance for that city irrespective of whether his place of residence was within such limits or outside.
(3.) NOW the change made, - -vide Annexure P/3 is that the House Rent Allowance admissible on account of the place of duty falling within 8 Kms. of the outer limit of the eligible cities has been withdrawn. On the other hand, a rural area allowance has been granted to the employees posted in rural areas subject to the condition that the place of residence of the employee is at the place of his posting or at any other place in the rural area. It has been made further clear that the cities have been classified into 'A' 'B' 'C' and 'D' classes on the basis of population and revised rate of House Rent Allowance has been laid down depending upon pay scales. Further if the amount of House Rent Allowance being withdrawn by an employee posted in the urban area is higher than in the revised pay scale then tire previous rate of House Rent Allowance admissible has been protected.;