1. In this group of matters, a challenge is to the circular dated 25.2.2000 issued by the Finance Department of the State of Gujarat, whereby the provisions of para 1(iii) of the Resolution dated 15.12.1975 of the Finance Department came to be cancelled. Under the circular dated 15.12.1975, Government employees, like the petitioners were entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) at the rate of 15% if place of duties of such employees was within the limit of 8 Km. from classified city. Thus, the petitioners challenged circular dated 25.2.2000, on the ground that such circular is unreasonable and there is no provision provided for withdrawing the benefits of HRA from the employees whose place of duty is at outskirt of the classified cities and who are required to stay in the city area because non-availability of the accommodation nearby the place of duty.
2. In the petitions from Ahmedabad District, the petitioners have stated that the Institution in which they are serving was already part of the old city of Ahmedabad and because of shifting of new building at the outskirt of Ahmedabad city, it cannot be said their place of duty is beyond Ahmedabad city. In fact, their say is to the effect that the institutions in which they are serving are part and parcel of Ahmedabad Agglomeration Area. Therefore, the argument of learned advocates for the petitioners so far as their place of duty at Ahmedabad city is concerned, is that circular dated 25.2.2000 even otherwise could not have taken away their right of drawing HRA on the basis of the earlier circular of 1975. So far as the other petitions of Rajkot city and Baroda city are concerned, learned advocates for the petitioners have submitted that their place of duty is also part of the Agglomeration Area of Rajkot city and Baroda city. It is their submission that simply because their place of duty was at the relevant time touching the outskirts and agglomeration area of Rajkot city and Baroda city, no distinction could have been made on the basis of the Circular dated 25.2.2000 and therefore, the application of circular dated 25.2.2000 in their cases was also unreasonable and arbitrary. Learned advocates in all the petitions have submitted that many areas of their duties have already merged in urban agglomeration area of cities of Ahmedabad, Rajkot and Baroda, and therefore, they were entitled to continue to draw HRA at the rate of 15%. Be that as it may, 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.
3. In response the above-said request made on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Jirga Jhaveri appearing in all the matters, stated before the Court that in view of the Government Resolution dated 16.5.2008, all the petitioners are entitled to HRA at the rates prescribed in their respective Urban Areas and in view of the fact that all the petitioners have been drawing HRA on the basis of the said Circular, the Government is not proposing to recover the amount of HRA paid to the petitioners on the basis of the earlier circular of 1975.
4. Considering the above aspects of the matter, all the petitions are not required to be, now, decided and these petitions are required to be disposed of having been infructuous.
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. With the above directions, the petitions are disposed of. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.
( A.J. DESAI, J. ) syed/ Top