JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Amit Sthalekar for respondents No. 2 and 3. With the argument of learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition has been heard finally under the Rules of the Court at this stage and is being decided. 2. An association namely, Dewwani Karmchari Sangh U.P., Kanpur Dehat through its President has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 1.4.2008, passed by District Judge, Kanpur Dehat and dated 22.2.2008 issued by the State Government whereby it has held that employees of Judgeship Kanpur Dehat are not entitled for any City Compensatory Allowance (in short ‘CCA’) and House Rent Allowance (in short ‘HRA’) at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under : Sometimes in the year 1985 a new Judgeship “Kanpur Dehat” was created by carving out certain areas from Kanpur and Kanpur itself was renamed as “Kanpur Nagar”. Due to lack of infrastructure etc. in Kanpur Dehat, District Judgeship was actually established in Kanpur Nagar, that too in the vicinity of the Judgeship of Kanpur Nagar and since then it is continuously functioning there. Both the Judgeships are across the road in Kanpur Nagar. Employees of Judgeship Kanpur Dehat are actually residing in nearby areas in Kanpur Nagar. 4. The facility of HRA and CCA has been extended to the Government employees through various Government Orders (In short ‘G.O.’). Government Order dated 15.12.1981 (Annexure 6 to the writ petition) provides that HRA shall be paid to all such Government servants who are posted in cities mentioned in Annexure-1 within their municipal limits or within 8 Km. of distance outside the municipal limits. Consequently, the employees of District Judgeship Kanpur Dehat were also paid H.R.A. under the G.O. dated 15.12.1981. Similarly, they were also paid CCA admissible at Kanpur Nagar in accordance with relevant Government Orders. However, one Additional District Judge posted in Kanpur Dehat Judgeship who was not paid CCA at the rates admissible in Kanpur Nagar sent a representation to the State Government claiming CCA. at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar. The same was declined by the State Government vide order dated 22.2.2008 holding that Government employees posted in Kanpur Dehat are not entitled for CCA. at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar. The same was declined by the State Government vide order dated 22.2.2008 holding that Government employees posted in Kanpur Dehat are not entitled for CCA. In the light of the said decision of the Government, the District Judge constituted a committee of four Judicial Officers which submitted its report on 28.3.2008 holding that neither CCA. is payable to Class III and Class IV employees of District Judgeship of Kanpur Dehat nor they are entitled to H.R.A. at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar and further ttie amount already paid under the two heads to such employees is liable to be recovered. The said report in respect of CCA and HRA has been accepted by District Judge vide order dated 1.4.2008 although on some other aspects he has required some clarification from the committee. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of District Judge denying CCA and HRA as admissible at Kanpur Nagar and recovery thereof. 5. Sri Ojha learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since District Judgeship, Kanpur Dehat is functioning at Kanpur Nagar itself, mere nomenclature of the judgeship would not render the petitioners ineligible or disentitle for CCA and HRA at the rates admissible for the place where the petitioners are actually working. He further submitted that the decision taken by the Committee is wholly erroneous, and on account of misreading of various G.O., therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and liable to be set aside. 6. Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that in view of the decision taken by the State Government that employees posted in the District Judgeship of Kanpur Dehat are not entitled for CCA or HRA admissible to employees of Kanpur City, the matter was examined by the District Judge and in view of the report submitted by the Committee constituted by him, it was found that the petitioners are not entitled to HRA and CCA admissible to Kanpur Nagar. He thus submitted that for reasons stated in the report of the Committee which is on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel also adopted the same arguments. 7. He thus submitted that for reasons stated in the report of the Committee which is on record as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief and writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Standing Counsel also adopted the same arguments. 7. The short questions required to be answered in this case are : (1) Whether the petitioners can be denied HRA at the rate admissible to the employees working at Kanpur Nagar merely on the ground that they are posted in a Judgeship which has been created for the area outside Kanpur Nagar and is known as Kanpur Dehat ? (2) Whether various G.Os. providing for HRA have rightly been interpreted by respondent No. 4 ? (3) Whether the petitioners are not entitled for CCA though as a matter of fact their office in which they are posted is situated at Kanpur Nagar and they are all working and residing in Kanpur Nagar or nearby area within 8 km of municipal limits ? 8. To answer the above questions this Court proposes first to deal with the issue pertaining to HRA. 9. Questions No. 1 and 2 pertaining to HRA can be considered and answered together. Entitlement for H.R.A. was made admissible by State Government pursuant to recommendation of U.P. Second Pay Commission accepted by the Government vide resolution dated 29.9.1981 and in furtherance thereof G.O. No. G-1-1745/X-81, Vitta (Sa.Anu-1) dated 15.12.1981 was issued. Para 1 of the said G.O. provides that as per the decision of the Governor all employees under the rule framing authority of the Government other than those working on work charge or contingency paid fund, shall be entitled for H.R.A. if their place of working is situated within municipal limits of cities contained in Schedule-I or outside the said municipal limits but within 8 km. thereof. In subsequent paragraphs certain other conditions as well as rates of HRA etc. was provided. The aforesaid G.O. was sought to be clarified by G.O. No. Vitta(Samanya) Anubhag-1 No. G.-1-2569/X-83/209/81 dated 28th February, 1984 with respect to question of admissibility of HRA to husband and wife who are in employment of the Government and are residing in the same house and the manner in which HRA would be admissible. The G.O. dated 28.2.1984 was rescinded by subsequent G.O. No. G-1-1887/X-209/81-Vitta (Sa) Anu.-1, dated 29.10.1984. The G.O. dated 28.2.1984 was rescinded by subsequent G.O. No. G-1-1887/X-209/81-Vitta (Sa) Anu.-1, dated 29.10.1984. Besides it, some other amendments were made vide G.Os. dated 15.12.1981, 29.12.1981, 14.3.1983, 28.1.1985, 2.3.1987 and 9.7.1987. Thereafter again on the recommendation of U.P. Third Pay Commission, accepted by the State Government vide its resolution dated 14.8.1988 rates of HRA were revised vide G.O. dated 19.9.1988 but in para 7 thereof it was stated that in respect to other terms and conditions various G.Os. earlier issued shall continue to be in force. Partial amendment in the rate of HRA in G.O. dated 19.9.1988 was made by G.O. dated 26.10.1988. It was also provided that the employees who are appointed and posted outside the State of U.P. shall be entitled for HRA at the same rate as prescribed by Government of India to its employees of equal status. Another clarification was issued by G.O. dated 28.2.1989 as to whether HRA would be payable to employees posted in the offices situated outside Municipal limits of city but within 8 km. thereof and it was clarified that in such a case also HRA at ,the rate admissible in the said city shall be payable. The employees who were working and posted in rural area, for them, rates of HRA were modified by G.O. dated 24.7.1992 which made partial amendment in the earlier G.O. dated 22.9.1988 issued for providing rates of HRA in rural area. Pursuant to the Fourth Pay Commission’s recommendation, 1998, which were made effective w.e.f. 1.1.1996, rates of HRA were again revised vide G.O. dated 11.6.1999, making amendment in earlier G.O. dated 24.7.1992 but nowhere it superseded or rescinded the initial Government Order dated 15.12.1981 which lays down conditions for entitlement of HRA, and, mainly the changes made by G.O. dated 11.6.1999 were in respect to rates. Some partial amendments were further made vide G.O. dated 11.6.1999 and dated 6.12.1999. Again a clarification was made by G.O. dated 25.2.2000 referring to G.O. dated 15.12.1981 and 11.6.1999 and stating that irrespective of the fact as to where a Government servant is residing, he would be entitled for HRA if his office, i.e., place of working is situated in the Municipal Limits of the city or within 8 km. thereof. It would be relevant to quote the clarification given by G.O. dated 25.2.2000 : “1. thereof. It would be relevant to quote the clarification given by G.O. dated 25.2.2000 : “1. Shasnadesh Sankhya G-1-1795/Das-81, 209-81 Dinank 15 December, 1981 Me Yeh Pravidhan Hai Ki Makan Kiraya Bhatta Sambandhit Nagar Ki Arhkari Seema Ke Bahar 8 Kilometer Ki Doori Tak Sthit Karyalayon Me Karyarat Sarkari Sewakon Ko Deya Hoga Chahe Sambandhit Sarkari Sewak Kahin Bhi Niwas Karta Ho. 8 Kilometer Ki Doori Sab Se Kam Doori Wale Marg Se Naapi Jayegi Aur Iski Pushti Poorva Ki Bhanti Ziladhikari Se Karani Avashyak Hogi. Shasnadesh Sankhya G-1-1887/Das-209-81, Dinank 29 October 1984 Me Yah Bhi Vyavastha Ki Gayi Thi Ki Makan Kiraya Bhatta Prakhyapit Nagarpalikaon Se Sanlagna Sthaniya Nikayon Ki Poori Seema Me Purvavat Milta Rahega, Kintu Ukt Sanlagna Sthaniya Nikayon Ke Bahar Sthit Karyalayon Se Doori Makan Kiraya Bhatta Ke Liye Mool Nagarpalika Ki Seema Se Hi Naapi Jayegi, Sanlagna Sthaniya Nikay Ki Seema Se Nahi. “2. Is Sambandh Me Mujhe Yeh Kahne Ka Nirdesh Hua Hai Ki Uprokt Vyavastha Shasnadesh Sankhya G-1-373/Dus-99-205-99, Dinank 11 June, 1999 Evam Shasnadesh Sankhya G-1-526/Das-205-99, Dinank 22 July, 1999 Dwara Sanshodhit Makan Kiraya Bhatta Ki Daron Ke Sandarbh Me Bhi Lagu Rahegi.” (English translation) “1. It is provided in Government Order No. G-1-1795/Das-81, 209-81 Dinank 15 December, 1981 that house rent allowance shall be payable to Government Servants working in offices situated within 8 km. outside the municipal limits irrespective of place of residence of Government servant. Distance of 8 km. shall be measured from the shortest route and its approval must be made by the District Magistrate as was being done in past. It was also provided in Government Order No. G-1-1887/Dus-209-81, Dinank 29 October 1984 that house rent allowance shall be continued to be given to employees working in the entire limits of local bodies attached to notified municipalities, but for the purpose of HRA, measurement of distance of offices of local bodies situated outside their limits shall be made from the original limit of municipality and not from local body’s limits.” “2. In this connection, I am also directed to say that the aforesaid provision shall be applicable to the rates of house rent allowance amended vide Government Orders No. G-1-373/Dus-99-205-99, dated 11 June, 1999 and G-1-526/Dus-205-99, dated 22 July, 1999” 10. Rates of HRA set out vide G.O. dated 4.6.1999 were again modified in respect to certain areas vide G.O. dated 16.4.2001. 11. Rates of HRA set out vide G.O. dated 4.6.1999 were again modified in respect to certain areas vide G.O. dated 16.4.2001. 11. A conjoint reading of all the above G.Os make it very clear, particularly the G.O. dated 25.2.2000 that the G.O. dated 15.12.1981 as such has not been rescinded or revoked by G.O. dated 11.6.1999 and any other previous or later G.O. The only changes made by G.O. dated 11.6.1999 was in respect to rates of HRA in different areas and other things contained therein but in respect to rest of the matters where no specific provisions were made by the G.O. dated 11.6.1999, the provisions of G.O. dated 15.12.1981 laying down conditions with respect to admissibility of HRA had continued to operate and that has been reiterated in G.O. dated 25.2.2000 while clarifying certain aspects of the matter as discussed above. This Court could not find out any reason in the entire report of the Committee appointed by District Judge as to how and in what manner they came to the conclusion that the G.O. dated 11.6.1999 has resulted in repealing G.O. dated 15.12.1981. The finding has been recorded without any basis and in my view, it is a clear misreading of G.O. dated 11.6.1999. The Committee has miserably failed to consider the effect and consequences in the light of the contents of various G.Os issued from time to time and, therefore, has also erred in law in making or coming to a conclusion which is ex facie perverse and based on no material. The view taken by the State Government also cannot be sustained in the light of discussion of contents of various G.Os issued by State Government with respect to admissibility of HRA from time to time. 12. The matter of HRA can be considered from another angle also. If place of working would have actually situated in rural area, not covered by provision of Government Order dated 15.12.1981, obviously an employee if residing in a city could not have claimed HRA at the rate admissible in city. 12. The matter of HRA can be considered from another angle also. If place of working would have actually situated in rural area, not covered by provision of Government Order dated 15.12.1981, obviously an employee if residing in a city could not have claimed HRA at the rate admissible in city. But where the office has been created at a different place but as a matter of fact has been established in a different city and is actually working and functioning in that city, then how and why HRA admissible in that city would not be admissible to the employee(s) posted in that office, particularly when none of the G.Os disentitles them in such a contingency for payment of HRA. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents also could not show or bring anything to the notice of this Court for taking a different view. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that learned District Judge has also erred in law in mechanically accepting the decision of the Committee in the light of the decision of the State Government as communicated by letter dated 22.2.2008 and therefore, with respect to payment of HRA the impugned orders cannot sustain and are liable to be quashed. Questions No. 1 and 2 are answered accordingly. 13. Now, I proceed to consider question with respect to CCA in the light of various G.Os whereunder the same is admissible. The provision made for CCA also stand on the same footing as we have found the things exist with respect to HRA. Starting from initial G.O. No. G-1-871/Dus-87-209-81 T.C. dated 9.7.1981 and subsequent G.Os No. G-1-422/Dus-207-81 dated 11.3.1982, G-1-603/Dus-86-209/86 dated 15.4.1986 and G-1-1166/Dus-262/88 dated 17.9.1988, it is evident that CCA was made admissible to Government employees who were working in the cities mentioned in the said G.Os. Various G.Os issued from time to time only made difference either in the rate of CCA admissible in various cities mentioned in the G.Os. or included or excluded name of a particular city/cities for admissibility of CCA under the aforesaid G.Os. It is not that the very basis with respect to admissibility of CCA at any point of time has been altered. or included or excluded name of a particular city/cities for admissibility of CCA under the aforesaid G.Os. It is not that the very basis with respect to admissibility of CCA at any point of time has been altered. The G.O. which has been considered by the Committee in order to deny CCA to the petitioners with effect from 10.6.1999 is G.O. No. G-1-375/Dus-99-203-99 dated 10.6.1999 which made amendment in the preceding G.Os No. G-1-1166/Dus-262/88 dated 17.9.1988 and G-1-977/Dus-262/88 dated 16.8.1993. The Committee has inferred that the aforesaid G.O. dated 10.6.1999 has the effect of rescinding earlier G.Os and, therefore, the petitioners were not entitled to CCA w.e.f. 10.6.1999. The Court finds that the inference drawn by the Committee is clearly erroneous and is a result of misreading of the said Government Order. 14. First I propose to consider the G.O. dated 17.9.1988 which after referring to G.Os. dated 9.7.1981, 11.3.1982, 24.5.1983 and 15.4.1986 provided that accepting the recommendations of Pay Commission, U.P., 1987, the Government has decided vide its resolution dated 14.8.1986 to provide revised rate of CCA w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to the Government employees working in Kanpur, Agra, Allahabad, Lucknow, Varanasi, Meerut, Bareilly, Gorakhpur, Moradabad and Aligarh and the aforesaid revised rate of CCA was made admissible w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The G.O. dated 10.6.1999 has been issued pursuant to the recommendations of Pay Commission, U.P. 1998 and decision of the Government to implement the same and in furtherance thereof it has revised the rate of CCA as well as made certain amendments with respect to admissibility of CCA in the cities of Kanpur, Lucknow, Varanasi, Bareilly, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Gorakhpur, Agra and Allahabad. Revised rate of CCA in the aforesaid cities has been provided w.e.f. 1.6.1999. G.Os dated 17.9.1988 and 16.8.1993 have been amended only to certain extent as provided in the G.O. dated 10.6.1999 but it has not rescinded or revoked the earlier G.Os in entirety. Revision has been made effective from 1.6.1999. The difference between G.O. dated 17.9.1988 and 10.6.1999, besides rate of CCA, is that city Aligarh has not been included in the G.O. dated 10.6.1999 and, therefore, as per the revised G.O. the said rate of CCA is not admissible to the Government servant working at Aligarh. Revision has been made effective from 1.6.1999. The difference between G.O. dated 17.9.1988 and 10.6.1999, besides rate of CCA, is that city Aligarh has not been included in the G.O. dated 10.6.1999 and, therefore, as per the revised G.O. the said rate of CCA is not admissible to the Government servant working at Aligarh. This is the only distinction in various G.Os and the Court did not find anywhere suggesting or even having any iota of indication that the earlier G.Os stand revoked and word ‘working’ in the cities mentioned in the said G.Os has been altered with the word ‘posted’ . The petitioners are posted in Judgeship Kanpur Dehat but admittedly, since the establishment of Kanpur Dehat Judgeship, its headquarters is at Kanpur Nagar itself, the employees of Kanpur Dehat Judgeship cannot be said to be working at a place other than Kanpur Nagar. The G.O. dated 10.6.1999 has been amended vide G.O. No. G-1/890/Dus-99-203/99 dated 6.12.1999 adding “Gautam Budh Nagar” in the column of Kanpur, and in the column of cities Bareilly, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Gorakhpur, Agra and Allahabad, two cities—”Moradabad and Aligarh” have also been included. Now presently by G.O. No. G-1-258/Dus-2001-203-99 dated 16.4.2001, the rate of CCA admissible to Lucknow has been changed and equated with Kanpur by placing in the same column in which Kanpur is placed and this has been made effective from 1.4.2001. No substantial difference in respect to the word ‘working’ which makes CCA admissible has been made so far and none has been shown to the Court by the respondents. 15. Learned Counsel for the respondents could not place before the Court that though the employees are working in the cities in which CCA is admissible under the aforesaid G.Os, yet it is not payable in the office in which they are functioning or established in the cities mentioned in G.Os. They failed to show that the petitioners would not be entitled to CCA at the rate admissible in the cities provided in the aforementioned G.Os where they are in fact ‘working’. 16. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that denial of CCA and HRA at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar to the petitioners is clearly erroneous, illegal and arbitrary and is not consistent with various G.Os, under which the aforesaid two allowances are admissible as discussed above. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 16. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that denial of CCA and HRA at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar to the petitioners is clearly erroneous, illegal and arbitrary and is not consistent with various G.Os, under which the aforesaid two allowances are admissible as discussed above. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The petitioners shall be entitled to HRA and CCA at the rate admissible at Kanpur Nagar so long as Judgeship of Kanpur Dehat is functioning at Kanpur Nagar. The impugned orders dated 1.4.2008, passed by District Judge, Kanpur Dehat and dated 22.2.2008 issued by the State Government are accordingly quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to costs which is quantified at Rs. 2000/-. ————