B. BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) - By this writ application, the petitioner, a Library Instructor in Berhampore Girls' College which is a Government sponsored College, has prayed for declaration that Memo No. 1963-Edn. (CS)/3a-4/81 dated 29th December, 1981 prohibiting the employees of government sponsored colleges whose spouses are drawing house rent allowance from Central Government, State Government, autonomous public undertakings or semi-government organization such as Municipality, Port Trust, autonomous bodies such as nationalized banks, Life Insurance Corporation of India or other educational institution etc. from getting full house rent allowance does not affect her right as her husband being an employee of the State Bank of India, does not come within those categories and, as such, she is entitled to get full House Rent Allowance. ( 2 ) THUS, a short question arises for determination in this writ application. ( 3 ) THE question is whether an employee of a State Bank of India can be brought within the category of ?an employee of educational institution/central Government/state Government/autonomous Public Undertaking or a Semi-Government organization, such as, Municipality, Port Trust, Nationalized Bank, Life Insurance Corporation of India etc?. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to law, a teaching or non-teaching staff of a government sponsored college can claim full amount of House Rent Allowance provided his or her spouse does not get such amounts in the capacity of an employee of those categories mentioned above. ( 5 ) IN the present case, as the husband of the petitioner, being an employee of State Bank of India has been drawing house rent allowance @ Rs. 1651/- per month, the State respondent refused to grant full House Rent Allowance to the petitioner. ( 6 ) BEING dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with the instant writ application. ( 7 ) MR. Sen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has strenuously contended that State Bank of India cannot come within the purview of the aforesaid categories as the same is neither a nationalized bank nor an autonomous public undertaking. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid contention of Mr. Sen has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. According to them, State Bank of India, being an autonomous public undertaking, comes within those expressions and, as such, the claim of the petitioner was rightly turned down. ( 8 ) THE aforesaid contention of Mr. Sen has been vehemently opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. According to them, State Bank of India, being an autonomous public undertaking, comes within those expressions and, as such, the claim of the petitioner was rightly turned down. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid admitted position, I find that State Bank of India, although is not a nationalized bank but being an autonomous public undertaking, created by virtue of State Bank of India Act, 1955, definitely comes within the aforesaid expressions. Thus, when the spouse of an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India or Port Trust is affected by the aforesaid circular, there is no reason why the wife of an employee of State Bank of India should not come within the aforesaid provision. ( 10 ) I, thus, find that the petitioner has no case in this writ application and the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 11 ) ALTHOUGH, in the writ application, the petitioner has prayed for declaring the aforesaid provision as violative of Constitution of India, Mr. Sen, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, did not seriously press such point. Moreover, the aforesaid provision is based on reasonable basis having regard to the fact that both husband and wife should not be permitted to get separate House Rent Allowance from public money and, as such, the restriction is not unreasonable. I, thus, find no merit in this writ application and the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstance, there will be, however, no order as to costs. B. Bhattacharya, J.- I agree. Petition dismissed