ORDER A.K. Mathur, C.J. 1. The petitioner by this petition, has prayed that a direction should be issued to the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner every month without any deductions, except those authorised by law. It is also prayed that a direction be issued for recovery of income tax at the uniform rate from the salary of the petitioner based on declarations made by him. It is further prayed that Paras 693 and 694 of the MES Regulation be declared ultra-vires the Army Act and rent and allied charges be recovered from the petitioner only after authentication of rent bills by him. 2. It is an unfortunate that an Army Officer in the rank of Major General by this petition, is compelled to highlight the omissions and commissions of the respondents, i.e. Military Engineer Services as well as the Controller of Defence Accounts. The petitioner is a commissioned officer of the Indian Army and he has completed 32 years of service. He is at present holding the rank of Major General and is posted as Deputy Commandant, Military College of Telecommunication Engineering, Mhow, and is residing with his family at 154-A, The Mall in Mhow. The petitioner is being paid his salary by the respondent No. 3/Controller of Defence Accounts (for short 'C.D.A.') located at Pune. Every month the respondent No. 3 made certain deductions from the salary of the petitioner like Income Tax recovered at source, Defence Services Officers' Provident Fund, Army Officers' Benevolent Fund subscription, Army Group Insurance Fund including house rent and allied charges like electricity, water and conservancy for Government accommodation. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was occupying married accommodation at 195-A Swarg Mandir, Mhow, from February, 1990 to June, 1991, The rent for the house and furniture, for the period 1-7-1990 to 30-11-1990, amounting to Rs. 860/- was recovered in one lump sum in March, 1992, In June, 1992, a sum of Rs. 1032/- was again recovered, as rent for the period 1.7.1990 to 31.12.1990. The rent for five months, i.e. July, August, September, October and November, 1990, was recovered twice. This was finally refunded in November, 1992, by respondent No. 2 after prolonged correspondence. In the month of June, 1996, a sum of Rs. 1032/- was again recovered, as rent for the period 1.7.1990 to 31.12.1990. The rent for five months, i.e. July, August, September, October and November, 1990, was recovered twice. This was finally refunded in November, 1992, by respondent No. 2 after prolonged correspondence. In the month of June, 1996, a sum of Rs. 49/- only was recovered from the salary of the petitioner as rent and allied charges for the period 27.7.1995 to 29.7.1995 for accommodation at Mhow. It is alleged that the petitioner was at Delhi and not at Mhow on the said dates; though the amount was small and was subsequently refunded by the respondent No. 3. It is also alleged that no effort was made by the respondent No. 3 to verify or scrutinise the rent bill, even though it was known to him that the petitioner was neither posted at Mhow nor had proceeded there on official duty during the period for which the rent was being recovered from his salary. While the petitioner was posted at Wellington in January, 1992, he took an advance of Rs. 2900/- for Leave Travel Concession and on return.he preferred a claim for Rs. 1,326.40 paise on 1.10.1992, after adjusting the advance of Rs. 2900/- out of the total expenditure of Rs. 4226.40 paise. 4. The claim of the petitioner was received by the respondent No. 3 and an order was passed on 23.10.1992. Meanwhile, on 17.9.1992, the respondent No. 3 had sent a bill call memo, intimating that if the claim was not preferred within one month of completion of the L.T.C. journey, the advance would be recovered. This was replied by the petitioner on 7.10.1992 informing the respondent No. 3 that the claim had already been forwarded. The respondent No. 3 sent an intimation memo on 5.11.1992 intimating that the advance of Rs. 2900/- was being recovered together with penal interest of Rs. 239/-, i.e. total Rs. 3139/- which was deducted from his salary in November, 1992. 5. When the petitioner entered into correspondence and brought to the notice of the respondents, they refunded the amount. It is also pointed out that in May, 1992, he had taken an advance of Rs. 12,500/- for official duty from Wellington to Pune. He proceeded on temporary duty on 16.6.1992 and returned on 1.10.1992 after availing ten days leave from 21st to 30th September, 1992. It is also pointed out that in May, 1992, he had taken an advance of Rs. 12,500/- for official duty from Wellington to Pune. He proceeded on temporary duty on 16.6.1992 and returned on 1.10.1992 after availing ten days leave from 21st to 30th September, 1992. On 7.10.1992 he preferred a claim for Rs. 8,999.50 paise and sent it to the respondent No. 3. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 3 by bill call memo dated 17.9.1992, intimated that the advance of Rs. 12,500/- would be recovered, if the claim was not preferred within 15 days of joining the Headquarter Station. This was replied on 7.10.1992 intimating the respondent No. 3 that the claim had already been sent. On 5.11.1992 the respondent No. 3 sent a memo for recovery of advance along with penal interest of Rs. 573/-, i.e., total sum of Rs. 13,073/-, which was deducted from the salary of the petitioner in November, 1992. 6. It is alleged that the petitioner vacated the accommodation at 4/34 Arjun Vihar, Delhi Cantt. on 3.5.1997 and this accommodation was occupied by Lt. Col. N.K. Saxena. It is alleged that inspite of having vacated the accommodation at Delhi on 3.5.1997 and it having been allotted to another Officer, the petitioner was still being made to pay rent and allied charges in respect of the said house, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure P/5, a computerised sheet, in which he has been charged rent for a period 1.4.1997 to 30.6.1997 for the house at Delhi, which had been vacated by him on 3.5.1997. 7. The petitioner also submitted that the Regulations 693 and 694 of the Defence Service Regulations for Military Engineer Services (for short MES Regulations) are contrary to Section 25 of the Indian Army Act, 1950 and he pointed out the expression appearing in the para 694 of the MES Regulations, which reads as under: The amount will be recovered by the Paying Authorities, without prior notice to the individuals concerned. This, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and therefore, both the paras 693 and 694 of the MES Regulations should be declared void. 8. A return was filed by the respondents and they have admitted some of the instances quoted by the petitioner of omissions and commissions. But, they have stated that the excess amount recovered by them from the petitioner has been refunded to him. 8. A return was filed by the respondents and they have admitted some of the instances quoted by the petitioner of omissions and commissions. But, they have stated that the excess amount recovered by them from the petitioner has been refunded to him. Be that as it may, though the amounts, which are involved, are not much for a person holding a rank of Major General, but the fact is that he has sought to bring out the omissions and commissions of the respondents No. 3 and 5 and he has taken a plea not only on behalf of individual, but trying to highlight that this grievance is common to all the Army Personnel all over the country. Therefore, the authority should be woken up from the deep slumber that by their omissions and commissions, the Army personnel has to undergo a serious economic hardship. The attempt made by a senior rank officer like Major General is laudable one. The omissions and commissions which have been pointed out by him, need to be properly taken care of and attention of the authorities should be drawn that if it could happen with the officer in the rank of Major General, then what to talk of the Jawan or non-commissioned Officer, who may be made to suffer on account of such omissions and commissions of Accounts Department or MES. 9. We will consider the individual items laid by the petitioner hereinafter. So far as the first question with regard to the validity of Paras 693 and 694 of MES Regulation is concerned, we do not find any substance to declare them invalid. 10. Under section 192 of the Army Act, 1950, it empowers the Central Government to make regulations for all or any of the purposes of this Act other than those specified in Section 191. Therefore, in exercise, of powers conferred under Section 192 of the Army Act, 1950, the aforesaid Regulations have been framed and it cannot be said that the regulations lack any legal sanctity. The petitioner pointed out that those Regulations were not published under section 193 of the Army Act, 1950, though, no such factual averments have been made in the petition. The petitioner pointed out that those Regulations were not published under section 193 of the Army Act, 1950, though, no such factual averments have been made in the petition. These Regulations have been in force for a very long time; therefore, we are not impressed with the submission that they were not published in the official gazette and therefore, they have not come into force. This submission though not factually averred in the petition, cannot be entertained to make a probe whether they were gazetted or not. Therefore, it cannot be said that these Regulations are ultra-vires of the Act or Rules. 11. It is also submitted that expression appearing in Para 694 of the MES Regulations that "the amount will be recovered by the Paying Authority without prior notice, to the individuals concerned", this according to the petitioner, is discriminatory because as against the other private individuals, they, are sent intimation to pay the rent; but so far as the serving Officer is concerned, he is not. The reason appears to be that the rate of rent is well known to all because it is prescribed under the Rules as to how much of rent is payable by each of the serving officers. Therefore, it is not necessary to send an intimation memo about the rate of rent, which is already prescribed under the Rules, and the amount can be deducted towards the rent for occupation of the premises. As such, it is not necessary that before the amount of house rent is deducted from the salary, each officer should be individually informed. Therefore, it cannot be said that expression is discriminatory so as to be rendered invalid. It may be possible that there is a lack of communication with regard to occupation and vacation of Government premises, so far as the rates of rent are concerned, it is well known and it is prescribed in the service Regulations. Therefore, in each month, it is not possible to intimate the rent which is to be charged. It may be possible which has happened in the present case that intimation has not been properly sent by the MES Department of occupation/vacation of the Government premises, which has resulted in overcharging the house rent, i.e. only inefficiency of the Department, by which the Regulations cannot be said to be ultra-vires. 12. It may be possible which has happened in the present case that intimation has not been properly sent by the MES Department of occupation/vacation of the Government premises, which has resulted in overcharging the house rent, i.e. only inefficiency of the Department, by which the Regulations cannot be said to be ultra-vires. 12. Now coming to the face of excess rent, which has been charged because of the slackness of the MES is not properly informing the Pay and Accounts Department, it has resulted in an inconvenience to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner has been charged the rent for not even occupying the premises and when it was intimated to the Department, they have made a necessary rectification and refunded the amount. This only highlights the inefficiency of the functioning of the MES Department 13. The petitioner present in person, has narrated his personal views by highlighting the aforesaid instances and has submitted that this is not peculiar to him but is a common feacture in Army with most of the Officers, who have to face the agony being at mercy of the MES Department that some time they correctly inform the Defence Accounts Department and sometimes they do not, that results into the excess recovery of the house rent from their salary. All that we can do, is to express our anguish about the working of the MES Department that proper care is not being taken to intimate the Accounts Department for house rent deductions which results in inconvenience and monetary hardship to officers. It is expected of the MES to see that they properly inform the Accounts Department as it cause financial hardship to the incumbent. Therefore, a proper care should be taken by the MES Department with regard to the house rent and other necessary charges so that the officers are not put to inconvenience. The petitioner has tried to make out a case on behalf of the Army Personnel, who had to suffer at the hands of the MES Department. We can only say that the authorities who are concerned with the Management of the MES Department, should see that they must act in a proper manner and not in a reckless manner resulting in inconvenience to the incumbent. We can only say that the authorities who are concerned with the Management of the MES Department, should see that they must act in a proper manner and not in a reckless manner resulting in inconvenience to the incumbent. The instances, which have been pointed out by the petitioner in person are, very unfortunate and it very badly reflects on the functioning of the MES Department. It is hoped that the authorities will gear up the Department and save the Army Personnel from falling victim to their irresponsible manner of functioning. However, as per admission of the petitioner himself, the refunds have been made of excess house rent, which has been charged from him. Therefore, no relief on that part could be given except the cost which may be awarded to the petitioner for bringing the state of affairs to the notice of this Court that this kind of thing is not peculiar to him alone but it is a common nature in Army. 14. In this connection, the petitioner has also submitted that the deductions of the Income tax at source should be discontinued. It is submitted that if the petitioner gives in writing that he will make the savings of particular amount when amount deducted at sources should be reduced proportionately, so that it may not result in hardship to the incumbent that he may have to pay income tax lump sum at the end of financial year from his salary, which causes a great financial hardship. The suggestion given by the petitioner is not practicable as per the income Tax Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The Department cannot take his word because it needs proper documentary proof of the investment deductions, therefore, we are not impressed by this submission made by the petitioner. 15. Before parting with the case, we may observe that whatever woes have brought out by Army Personnel in a representative capacity should be examined by Army Authorities so that hardship to rank is minimised and it may not lead to indiscipline as a stitch in time saves nine. Therefore, earlier proper measures are taken, better it would be for the institution. 16. Therefore, earlier proper measures are taken, better it would be for the institution. 16. It may also be mentioned here that some time a lump sum recovery is being made of the excess payment then as per the circulars issued by the Government from time to time, the lump sum recovery should not be made, but it should be made in piece meal so that it may not cause any great financial hardship to the incumbent. Since the Government instructions are already there, therefore, we hope that the Accounts Department will keep these circulars in view and shall not make deductions in lump sum without proper application of mind. 17. As a result of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, we award a cost of Rs. 1000/- (Rs. One Thousand only) to the petitioner for suffering at the hands of the MES/Accounts Department. Petition dismissed