MATHUR, J. - (1.) BY way of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitute of India the petitioner has challenged order dated 21. 8. 2001, whereby his request for grant of house rent for the period 1. 9. 2000 to 30. 04. 2001 has been declined.
(2.) THE short facts giving rise to the instant petition are that while the petitioner was posted as District & Sessions Judge, Jhalawar by order of the High Court dated 29. 08. 2000, he was kept under awaiting posting orders at Jaipur with immediate effect. Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar General on telephone he reported to the Registrar, Administration at Jaipur on 1. 9. 2000. Subsequently pending departmental enquiry he was put under suspension by order dated 20. 11. 2000. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on 30. 04. 2001. He was paid salary for the period of APO on 4. 6. 2001. After his case for payment of salary was settled, an application was submitted for the payment of house rent during the period of APO/suspension i. e. , 1. 9. 2000 to 30. 04. 2001. THE application was also accompanied by the original receipts of the rent. THE application for grant of HRA was rejected on the ground that such an application was to be filed within a period of one month as per Rule 4 (4) of the House Rent Allowances Rules, 1989. He filed a review application against the order dated 21. 8. 2001 but the same was also rejected by order dated 18. 12. 2002. In a reply to the writ petition the respondent has justified the stand taken for rejection of the prayer for grant of HRA. It is contended by the learned counsel that as he was not paid salary for the period of APO/suspension as such there was no occasion for him to submit any application for grant of HRA. When, he was paid the salary, a claim was filed for grant of HRA. The learned counsel appearing for the High Court has reiterated the stand taken while rejecting the prayer for grant of HRA. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed. Sub- rule (4) of Rule 4 of the House Rent Allowances Rules, 1989 reads as follows:- Bu fu;eksa ds vurxzr izkfkzuk i= izlrqr djus ij jktdh; jkt; dezpkjh dks Hkrrk ml fnu ls eatwj fd;k tk;sxk ftl fnu fdjk;s@lokfero dh txg xzg. k dh gks] ijurq vxj txg xzg. k djus ds ,d ekl ds Hkhrj vxj izkfkzuk i= izlrqr fd;k x;k gks] ojuk izkfkzuk i= izlrqr fd;s tkus ds fnu ls Hkrrk vuqx`fgr gksxka** The Sub-rule (4) provides that a government employee should be paid house rent from the date he occupies the rented premises, provided such an application is filed within a period of one month, otherwise the rent shall be paid from the date of filing the application. In the instant case, the petitioner was kept under Awaiting Posting Orders by order dated 29. 08. 2000. He was kept Awaiting Posting Orders at Jaipur. He was also asked to immediately report to Registrar Administration, Jaipur. Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar General he reported to the Registrar (Administration), Jaipur on 1. 9. 2000. As per the orders of the High Court he continued to stay at Jaipur until attaining the age of superannuation. It is also not in dispute that he was paid salary for the period of APO after his retirement. Under these circumstances, there is justification in the say of the petitioner that the could not file any application for the payment of house rent. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the House Rent Allowances Rules cannot be interpreted in a manner which deprives an employee of the house rent. Where a statute imposes a public duty and lays down the manner in which and time within which the duty shall be performed, injustice or inconvenience resulting from a rigid adherence to the statutory prescription may be relevant factor in holding such prescription only directory. Thus, we are of the view that the provision of submitting an application for payment of house rent within a period of one month is directive in nature. In a case where the application is not submitted within a period of one month the authority is required to consider the reasons for not submitting the application within one month. The respondents cannot take advantage of its own wrong. The petitioner complied with the orders of the respondents immediately by reporting before the Registrar Administration on 1. 9. 2000. It is not in dispute that since then he continued to stay at Jaipur. Obviously, he must have stayed in a rented house. The petitioner has produced the rent receipts. There is no reason to disbelieve his statement to the effect that he resided in a rented premises. Thus, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the house rent for the period he remained under Awaiting Posting Orders/suspension.
(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 21. 8. 2001 and 18. 12. 2002 are set aside. The respondents are directed to pay the house rent to the petitioner for the period 1. 9. 2000 to 30. 04. 2001 within a period of three months. No order as to cost. .;