JUDGMENT 1. Rule 18(2) of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Determination and Recovery of Rent of Residential Accommodation) Rules, 1958 (in short' the Rules of 1958'), as it originally stood which provided the charging of rent from allottees of Government houses, was as follows : "18(2) unless in any case it be otherwise expressly provided in these rules, he shall pay : (i) (a) rent for the residence, such rent being the standard rent as defined in these rules, or (b) 7.5 percent of his monthly emoluments in case his emluments are below Rs. 400/- p.m. and 10%, percent of his monthly emoluments if it is Rs. 400/- p.m. or more; whichever is less, and (ii) Municipal and other taxes payable by the Government in respect of the residence, not being in the nature of House or Property tax." 2. On 23-26th May, 1978, the existing rule 18(2) of the Rules of 1958 was substituted by the following: "Unless otherwise expressly provided in these rules he shall pay monthly rent according to the following rates Provided that the officers of All India Services and other Government servants who are not drawing salary under the New Pay Scale Rules, 1976 shall pay rent according to the following rates : Pay Range Rate of %age prescribed (i) Upto Rs. 509/- 71/2% (ii) above Rs. 509/- 10% Provided further that persons residing in a category of accommodation lower than the one to which they are entitled shall pay maximum rent recoverable for such lower category of house on the basis of the maximum of the pay range prescribed for allotment of such lower category of house and the rate of rental recovery applicable to this maximum of the pay range." 3. Thereafter, there was another amendment made in the Rules of 1958, on 14.3.1983 and by that amendment, Rule 18(2) was substituted as follows, w.e.f. 1.9.1981: "(2)(a) Unless otherwise expressly provided in these rules, the Govt. Servants drawing salary under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983, shall pay monthly rent according to the following rates : Pay Range rate of %age prescribed (i) Below Rs. 300/- Rs. 10/- p.m. (fixed) (ii) Rs. 300/- and more but below Rs. 500/- p.m. 41/2% of the pay (iii) Rs. 500/- and more but below Rs. 800/- p.m. 6% of the pay (iv) Rs. 800/- and more but below Rs. 300/- Rs. 10/- p.m. (fixed) (ii) Rs. 300/- and more but below Rs. 500/- p.m. 41/2% of the pay (iii) Rs. 500/- and more but below Rs. 800/- p.m. 6% of the pay (iv) Rs. 800/- and more but below Rs. 1400/- p.m. 7% of the pay (v) Rs. 1400/- and more but below Rs. 2000/- p.m. 8% of the pay (vi)Rs. 2000/- and more 10% of the pay 4. The amendment of 1983 became necessary in view of the order of the Government merging dearness allowance with the pay. 5. Appellant, who was employed as an LDC with the State Government or. 9.7.1955, was allotted Government house in the year 1970. 6. Under the Rules as amended in the year 1978, the appellant was made to pay on the basis of pay scale according to the Schedule given in the amended Rules of 1978 and thereafter according to the amended rules of 1983. 7. When rent on the basis of the percentage of pay scale, as existing at the time of filing the writ petition, was deducted from his salary, the appellant came to this Court to challenge the validity of the amended Rules. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by a well considered judgment dated 26th July, 1985, held that the amendments made in the rules were not invalid and percentage of salary ranging from 3% to 81/2% of the salary was not arbitrary. 8. An argument was raised that Rule 11 would be applicable and not rule 18(2). This argument was rejected on the ground that under the amended rules, standard rent was not payable and therefore, Rule 11 was not attracted in the case. 9. This is special appeal from that order. 10. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that there is no scope for interference in this appeal. 11. It cannot be disputed that the Govt. has the power to amend rules, from time to time, and unless the rules are shown to be arbitrary, the court will have no jurisdiction to quash them. The only argument raised is that Rule 11 provides the fixation of standard rent and therefore, standard rent alone should be charged. Rule 11 will become applicable only if a rule like rule 18 provides for charging rent on the basis of standard rent. The only argument raised is that Rule 11 provides the fixation of standard rent and therefore, standard rent alone should be charged. Rule 11 will become applicable only if a rule like rule 18 provides for charging rent on the basis of standard rent. In the year 1970, when the house was allotted to the appellant, the first clause provided for fixation of standard rent and rent payable on that basis and the subsequent clause provided rent payable on the basis of percentage of the pay scale. In the amended Rules of 1978 first clause of payment of standard rent was deleted and that deletion continued even in the amendment of 1983. Therefore, under the rules, as they existed when the writ petition was filed, there was no clause for payment of rent on the basis of standard rent. In this view of the matter, Rule 11 became inapplicable to the case and even if it resist in the rules, it has no meaning so far the decision of this case is concerned. 12. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed.Special Appeal Dismissed. *******