Order There are fifteen petitioners who are working as teacher in the Magadh University. They seek to challenge a notification dated 20.4.1996 (annexure 5) issued by the order of the Vice Chancellor which provides that tae payment of house rent allowance would be made to the teaching and the non-teaching staff of the University only on production of receipt issued by the landlord showing payment of rent and on furnishing a full and complete description of the rented house. The petitioners challenge to the notification is quite simple and according to them though they are entitled to receive house rent allowance, it is not possible for them to comply with the directions given in the impugned notification for the simple reason that they are not living in any rented house but in their own houses. It is not in dispute that employees of the University living in their own houses are also entitled to receive house rent allowance. It is also not disputed that the payment of house rent allowance to the University employees is governed by the provisions of the Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowance) Rules, 1980. Rule 8 of the aforesaid rules deals with the employees owing houses and is in the following terms: "8 (i) A Government servant living in a house owned by him, his wife, children, father or mother shall also be eligible for house rent allowance under three rules. In such eases, the gross rental value of the house, or if he is not occupation of he entire house, or the portion of the house actually occuped by him (as ascertained from its assessed value for Municipal purposes or otherwise) without deduction of rebate of 10 percent on account of repairs and including Municipal and other taxes that are legally payable by the owners other than "Service taxes" levied separately and described as such, shall be taken as the rent paid by him for private accommodation for the purpose of these rules. "When separate amount of assessed value is not available in respect of a portion of a house, it will be calcnlated proportionately with reference to the plinth area actually in the occupation of a Government servant. If a house is situated within a Municipality/Local board/Notified area/cantonment boards, grant of house rent allowance in above case should invaribly be regulated on the basis of gross rental value as assessed by these authorities. If a house is situated within a Municipality/Local board/Notified area/cantonment boards, grant of house rent allowance in above case should invaribly be regulated on the basis of gross rental value as assessed by these authorities. Only when assessment by such an authority is not possible assessment made by other local authorities may be accepted as the basis for the grant of House Rent Allowance. "(ii) In the case of a Government servant living in a house owned by a Hindu Undivided family in which he is a co-partner, house rent allowance will be regulated with reference to the gross rental value, as in Clause (i) of the portion of the house actually in his occupation and not on the has is of the rent which he claims to pay to Manager of the Hindu Undivided family." It is, thus, apparent that while issuing the impugned notification, the University completely over looked the case of its employees residing in their own houses such as the petitioners. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the University, reliance has been placed on rules 38 (ii) and 9 (a). In my considered opinion, the stand taken by the University is patently misconceived. The house Rent Allowance Rules clearly put the employees in two categories one living in rented accommodation and the other living in their own houses and separate rules are framed in relation to the two categories. The provision' requiring the production of rent receipt applies to the category of employees residing in the rented houses whereas the case of the employees living in their own houses is to be governed by the provision of rule 8 as quoted above. In view of the aforesaid, I have no hesitation in holding that the demand made in the impugned notification would not apply to the petitioners or such other employees who are residing in their own houses and they will continue to receive house rent allowance in terms of rule 8 of the Rules. In the result, this application is allowed. No costs. Application allowed.