Order : (Per S.R. Nayak, J.) This writ petition was initially filed by Late Justice Challa Kondaiah, a former retired Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh. While writ petition was pending, he died and his LRs were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 5 by order of the Court dated 21-8-2001 passed in WPMPNo. 21006 of 2001. 2. A short question that arises for decision in this writ petition is whether the deceased-petitioner was entitled to claim exemption in respect of House Rent Allowance (HRA) of Rs. 30,000/- received by him during the accounting year corresponding to assessment year 1989-90 as a Member, Commission of Enquiry. 3. The assessee after retirement as Chief Justice of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was appointed as Member, Commission of Enquiry, by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to enquire into cases under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976. The Income Tax assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1989-90 was completed under Section 143 (3) on 27-11-1990 on a total income of Rs. 1,29,680/- by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (3), Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent herein. Subsequently, the assessment records relating to the assessee were examined by the Commissioner of Income-Tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad (CIT), the 1st respondent herein and he found that the assessee has claimed full exemption in respect of the house rent allowance of Rs. 30,000/- received by him during the accounting year corresponding to the assessment year 1989-90 as a Member, Commission of Enquiry. The CIT opining that the assessee was not actually entitled to exemption of the house rent allowance and therefore the Income-Tax Officer committed an error in granting exemption to the assessee in respect of the house rent allowance received by the assessee and the said action of the Income Tax Officer was prejudicial to the interest of revenue, issued show-cause notice to the assessee directing him to show-cause why proceedings under Section 263 of the Act should not be taken recourse to in his case. 4. 4. Before the CIT, it was argued on behalf of the assessee that since the assessee was holding the post of Member, Commission of Enquiry, a post which could be filled up only by sitting or retired High Court Judges, the assessee should be considered as a High Court Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and on that basis all the benefits that accrue to a High Court Judge should be extended to the assessee also and if they are so extended, the assessee was entitled to seek exemption from Income Tax in respect of the house rent allowance of Rs. 30,000/- received by him as a Member, Commission of Enquiry. The said contention was rejected by the CIT and he revised the assessment order dated 26-3-1993 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same with direction to the Assessing Officer to reframe it, taking into consideration the legal position relating to exemptability of house rent allowance as recorded by him in his order. Hence, this writ petition assailing the validity and legality of the order of the CIT dated 26-3-1993. 5. Sri M. Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners while assailing the impugned order the CIT would contend that in terms of the appointment order issued to the deceased-assessee, he was entitled to salary and other perquisites and other allowances to which a High Court Judge is entitled. It was argued by the learned Counsel that since the house rent allowance payable to a High Court Judge is fully exempt from Income-tax, similar treatment should be extended to the assessee also. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department would support the order of the CIT passed under Section 263 of the Act. 6. In appreciating the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, should it be noticed at the threshold that the Income Tax Act does not provide any exemption in respect of house rent allowance payable to Judges of the High Courts. It is only the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, has made provision exempting the house rent allowance payable to the High Court Judges from Income-Tax. It is only the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, has made provision exempting the house rent allowance payable to the High Court Judges from Income-Tax. Sections 22-A and 22-D of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954, at the relevant period read: '22-A. (1) Every Judge shall be entitled without payment of rent to the use of an official residence in accordance with such rules as may, from time to time, be made in this behalf. (2) Where a Judge does not avail himself of the use of an official residence, he may be paid every month an allowance of Ten thousand rupees only'-. 22-D. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Income-Tax Act, 1961,- (a) the value of rent-free official residence provided to a Judge under sub-section (1) of Sec. 22-Aor the allowance paid to himunder sub-section (2) of that Section; (b) the value of the conveyance facilities provided to a Judge under Section 22-B; (c) the sumptuary allowance provided to a Judge under Section 22-C; shall not be included in the computation of his income chargeable under the head 'Salaries'- under Section 15 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. (d) LTC provided to a Judge and member of his family. The word 'Judge'- is defined in Section 2 (g) of the Act as under: 'Judge means a Judge of a High Court and includes the Chief Justice; an Acting Chief Justice, an Additional Judge and an acting Judge of the High Court'-. It is quite clear from the definition of the word 'Judge'- as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act, Judge means only a sitting High Court Judge, not a retired High Court Judge. Therefore, the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court cannot be brought under the exemptability clause contained under Section 22-D of the Act. It is quite clear from the definition of the word 'Judge'- as defined under Section 2 (g) of the Act, Judge means only a sitting High Court Judge, not a retired High Court Judge. Therefore, the retired Chief Justices and Judges of the High Court cannot be brought under the exemptability clause contained under Section 22-D of the Act. If that is so, simply because the petitioner was appointed as Member, Commission of Enquiry, on the basis that he earlier held the post of Chief Justice of a High Court, he could not claim that he should be treated as a sitting Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court so as to entitle him to seek exemption from payment of Income-Tax in respect of the house rent allowance received by him as a Member, Commission of Enquiry on par with exemption provided to the High Court Judges under Section 22-D of the Act. If a retired Chief Justice or a retired Judge of a High Court is appointed by the State Government or the Central Government for any purpose or to any post, those appointments would be under the Government of India or the concerned State Government as the case may be, and those posts cannot be treated as constitutional posts of Chief Justice or Judges of a High Court to attract the provisions of Sec. 22-D of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954. With the retirement, a Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court ceases to be a Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court, as the case may be, and his re-appointment by the Government for any purpose or to any post would not revive his status as Chief Justice or Judge of a High Court. It is equally important to notice that the State Government is incompetent to grant exemption from payment of tax in respect of house rent allowance paid by it to its appointees. As noticed above, the Income Tax Act as such does not grant any exemption from payment of Income Tax in respect of the house rent allowance paid to the High Court Judges. As noticed above, the Income Tax Act as such does not grant any exemption from payment of Income Tax in respect of the house rent allowance paid to the High Court Judges. A retired Judge who has been appointed by the State Government or the Central Government to any post cannot be brought under the purview of the High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954 and he, therefore, cannot claim exemption from Income-tax in respect of the house rent allowance received by him as an appointee to such post. Therefore, the opinion of the CIT impugned in this writ petition is unexceptionable. 7. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.