ORDER 1. THE RESPONDENT HEREIN WAS APPOINTED AS LOWER DIVISION CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ON 26-2-1976 AND HE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS E WORKING AS SECTION OFFICER IN THE ACCOUNTANT GENERALS OFFICE AT TRIVANDRUM. THE RESPONDENTS WIFE WAS AN UPPER DIVISION CLERK IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, TRIVANDRUM. THE WIFE OF THE RESPONDENT WAS ALLOTTED A GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION BY HER EMPLOYERS AT TRIVANDRUM ON 3-8-1981 AND THE RESPONDENT WAS ALSO RESIDING IN THE SAID ACCOMMODATION WITH HIS WIFE. PARA 5(C)(III) OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RULES AND SUPPLEMENTARY RULES PROVIDES THAT A GOVERNMENT SERVANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE IF EITHER OF THE SPOUSES HAS BEEN ALLOTTED A GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION AT THE SAME STATION BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, STATE GOVERNMENT, AUTONOMOUS PUBLIC UNDERTAKING OR SEMI-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION SUCH AS MUNICIPALITY, PORT TRUST, ETC. THE RESPONDENT WHO WAS SHARING ACCOMMODATION WITH HIS WIFE, DID NOT INFORM IN REGARD TO THE SAID ALLOTMENT OF PREMISES IN FAVOUR OF HIS WIFE TO THE APPELLANTS HEREIN AND HE CONTINUED TO DRAW HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE ON THE PREMISE THAT HIS WIFE HAS NOT BEEN ALLOTTED ANY GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION AT THE SAID PLACE. IT IS ALLEGED THAT WHEN THE APPELLANTS CAME TO KNOW THAT THE RESPONDENTS WIFE HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOTTED A GOVERNMENT ACCOMMODATION WHICH WAS BEING SHARED BY THE RESPONDENT, A NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR RECOVERY OF THE HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE ILLEGALLY DRAWN BY THE RESPONDENT. THE RESPONDENT CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID NOTICE BY FILING AN OA BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH (HEREINAFTER CALLED "THE TRIBUNAL"), CONTENDING THAT THE SAID RECOVERY BARRED BY TIME. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE RECOVERY OF THE HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE FROM THE RESPONDENT BEYOND THREE YEARS WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. IT IS AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE APPELLANTS ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS. DESPITE SERVICE, NONE APPEARS FOR THE RESPONDENT. 3. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE SUFFERS FROM A PATENT ERROR OF LAW ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. UNDER ARTICLE 112 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY, SO FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED, IS 30 YEARS AND NOT THREE YEARS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 4. UNDER ARTICLE 112 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY, SO FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED, IS 30 YEARS AND NOT THREE YEARS. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THIS APPEAL DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 4. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE AND DISMISS THE OA FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO RECOVER THE HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE ILLEGALLY DRAWN BY THE RESPONDENT.