The petitioners who are working as teaching and non- teaching employees of respondent No.4 school, by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, have prayed to quash and set aside Government Resolution dated 25.02.2000 and it is further prayed to direct the respondent to make payment of House Rent Allowance (HRA), Casual Leave Allowance (CLA) etc. at the same rate as is applicable to the city of Baroda. 2. The petitioners are working as teaching and non teaching staff with respondent no.4 school which is a government school receiving 100% grant including salary grant. The school is situated at village Sevasi which is very near the limits of Vadodara city. The petitioners receive salary under the direct salary scheme with other emoluments such as DA, HRA, CLA. By the impugned resolution, the State Govt. reduced House Rent Allowance of the petitioner from 15% basic to 5% basic. Another circular dated 18.5.2007 was issued ignoring the Sevasi village as in area of urban agglomeration.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.4 school is situated near the limits of Vadodara Municipal Corporation at Sevasi village and the distance is merely half km between the two. The respondent no.4 school is situated within the limit of Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) and within the revenue limit of village Sevasi. The petitioners are working at Sevasi but residing at Vadodara. Therefore, they are within the range of qualified limit of Vadodara city, being within 8 km as provided in the Finance Department Resolution dated 15.12.1975 and 1.9.1978. Sevasi village was shown and declared within the Vadodara city Development Area as per the Notification published in the daily newspaper ‘Gujarat Samachar’ on 3.5.79. VUDA has issued certificate dated 8.5.2000 in this reagard. On all these grounds it was contended that reducing the HRA and CLA was not justified and the impugned notification dated 25.2.2000 was arbitrary and illegal and requires to be set aside.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Learned advocate Bipin Jasani for the petitioner at the out set submitted that the grievance of the petitioners raised in the present petition is covered in their favour as per decision in the case of N.M. Bhensadadia, Head Master and others vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. and cognate petitioners. (Special Civil Application No. 7712 of 2000 with No. 7707 of 2000 with 7404 of 2000) decided as per common oral judgment dated 4.5.2012, wherein the same notification of the dated 25.2.2000 of the Finance Department of Government. of Gujarat was challenged and similar point was agitated by the petitioners of those petitions who were from Ahmedabad District whose work place was at the outskirt of Ahmedabad near to Ahmedabad City area, but they were staying in Ahmedabad. The other side could not dispute the said.
5. From the decision in N.M.Bhensadadia (supra), the relevant paragraphs may be usefully extracted which applies directly in the present case.
“.....this very circular dated 25.2.2000 was a subject matter of challenge in earlier petition and this Court in two different reported judgments, viz. in the case of N.R. Parikh and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 2002(2) GLH 657 and in the case of K.B. Zala Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2003(1) GLH 210 and this Court has taken a view that there was reasonable nexus and purpose to be achieved for issuing the above-said circular and fixing of different rates of House Rent for distinct category of and areas cannot be said to be arbitrary. So far as the petitioners of this group of petitions are concerned, the question raised by them will not be required to be decided for two reasons, viz. that in place of earlier circular, now, the State Government has issued circular dated 16.5.2008, according to which, all the petitioners have been drawing HRA and there is no grievance voiced about less payment of HRA after the above-said circular, and (2) the areas of services of the petitioners are now been parts of the Urban Agglomeration Area of Ahmedabad, Rajkot, and Vadodara cities and therefore also, the question of their entitlement in respect of the challenge to the circular dated 25.2.2000 will not be required to be examined. However, since all the petitioners have continued to be paid HRA on the basis of the earlier circular of 1975, under the interim order passed by this Court, they have urged that in view of the fact that payment of HRA was made considering the merits of their cases and not on any misrepresentation and in view of the fact that the area of their service could not have been considered to be away from Urban Agglomeration Area of the respective cities and in view of the fact that by circular dated 16.5.2008, the very benefits in respect of their place of service have been continued, the Government may be directed not to recover the amounts of HRA which have already been paid to them.”
5.1 It was further noted and observed in the above decision, “5. Learned advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment dated 12.4.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.4971 of 2000 and allied matters by which case of similarly situated employees of the Government was considered. A copy of the said judgment is perused, and I am in agreement with the observations made by this Court. I have also gone through the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1870 of 2004 and allied matters which is relied upon by this Court in the decision dated 12.4.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No.4971 of 2000. I am in agreement with the observations made by this Court to the effect that in view of the circular dated 16.5.2008, HRA was paid to the Government employees as prescribed for the respective Urban Area and the Government was not proposing to recover the amount of HRA which was already paid in past on the basis of the earlier circulars. Taking note of this order also and considering the statement made by learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Jirga Jhaveri, there is no question of recovery of any amount of HRA already paid to the petitioners. The respondents are, therefore, directed not to recover any amount of HRA paid to the petitioners in past on the basis of the circular dated 15.12.1975.”
6. Learned advocate for the applicant fairly stated that the above decision applies to the petitioners herein also. The case of the employees staying in the city of Vadodara and working in the close of the urban area of Vadodara city are also covered and the resolution/circular dated 16.5.2008 would apply to their case also. The petitioners have been getting the benefit of HRA etc. Learned APP could not the dispute the above position. The decision in N.M.Bhensadadia (supra) and the directions contained therein extracted above would apply to the petitioners’ case also.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of in the same terms as in the decision in N.M.Bhensadadia (supra) by observing and directing that the same shall govern the case of the present petitioners. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand discharged. No costs.
cmjoshi (N.V.ANJARIA, J.)