Judgment :- Heard both sides. 2. The two petitioners were working as Assistant Agricultural Officers. They have come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking to challenge the order dated 1.10.2009 passed by the 2nd respondent and for a consequential prayer for refund of House Rent Allowance already recovered. 3. It is needless to state that the post of Assistant Agricultural Officer is related to rural areas and the Agricultural Officers are given house along with their office. If, for any post, official quarters are sanctioned as per the relevant Rules of the Government, house rent allowance is automatically detected from the salary of such officers. The petitioners have been allotted to various posting places and the Headquarter has also been set out therein. In case of the 1st petitioner, he is allotted to Olagadam along with official quarters. The 2nd petitioner is allotted to Pethampalayam. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the 1st respondent has sworn an affidavit and stated that he was staying in a care of address in the same place of posting. The residential address of the 2nd petitioner is stated to be at Kathrampatti Village. 5. In the present case, the contention of the petitioner was that the house was not in proper condition for occupation and even the Assistant Director of Agriculture had written to the Executive Engineer Building Maintenance, Erode that the houses are in damaged condition. Therefore, they must be inspected and a proper report should be sent to his office for carrying out repairs. The petitioners have produced some photographs to show the conditions of the house. This is not a matter which this Court can go into the issue on the basis of the materials produced de hors the rules and standing orders covering the issue. 6. The only question arises for consideration is when the petitioners are allotted to office quarters, notwithstanding the fact whether they are staying in the same quarters or not, as per the Rules of the Government, recoveries towards from the House Rent Allowance can be made and credited to the Government. 7. In the impugned order, the Joint Director of Agriculture has only informed the petitioners about the relevant Rule position. 7. In the impugned order, the Joint Director of Agriculture has only informed the petitioners about the relevant Rule position. It has been stated by him that only when they produce appropriate certificate from the P.W.D. Executive Engineer that the houses are inhabitable, the recovery towards HRA can be stopped. 8. In the present case, no such attempts have been made to get any such certificate. On the contrary, relying upon an inter-office communication sent by the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Agricultural Extension Centre, Perundurai, addressed to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Erode dated 24.11.2009, the Writ Petition has been filed. The petitioners can never rely upon the said communication as it seeks for certain particulars from the P.W.D and it merely informs that the houses are in a damaged condition. There is no reference in that letter the they are inhabitable. 9. Paragraph 5 of the impugned order clearly says that a Certificate must be obtained from the P.W.D Engineer certifying that the houses are inhabitable. It is then only the recoveries can be stopped. 10. More or less in an identical circumstance, the Supreme Court dealing with the recovery of HRA even for an unallotted accommodation in a decision in Director, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute v. M. Purushothaman, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 633 held in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows: "5. It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that paragraphs 4(a)(i) and (ii) lay down the procedure for making application for accommodation. Paragraph 4(b)(i) lays down the consequences on refusal to accept the accommodation when offered. There is no doubt that paragraphs 4(a)(i) and (ii) state that an application has to be made to secure accommodation. However, that does not mean that the Government or the organisation such as the appellant-Organisation to which the said provisions apply, cannot on their own offer accommodation to the employees. Hence the reason given by the Tribunal that it is only if the employee applies for such accommodation and he refuses to accept the same when offered that he would be disentitled to HRA, is not correct. It must be remembered in this connection that the Government or the organisation of the kind of the appellant spends huge public funds for constructing quarters for their employees both for the convenience of the Management as well as of the employees. It must be remembered in this connection that the Government or the organisation of the kind of the appellant spends huge public funds for constructing quarters for their employees both for the convenience of the Management as well as of the employees. The investment thus made in constructing and maintaining the quarters will be a waste if they are to lie unoccupied. HRA is not a matter of right. It is in lieu of the accommodation not made available to the employees. This being the case, it follows that whenever the accommodation is offered the employees have either to accept it or to forfeit HRA. The Management cannot be saddled with double liability, viz., to construct and maintain the quarters as well as to pay HRA. This is the rationale of the provisions of paragraph 4 of the said Government Office Memorandum. 6. It is for this reason again that paragraph 4(b)(i) provides that HRA shall not be admissible to those who occupy accommodation provided for them as well as to those to whom accommodation has been offered but who have refused to accept it. The provisions of paragraph 4(b)(i) are independent of the provisions of paragraphs 4(a)(i) and (ii). Whereas paragraphs 4(a)(i) and (ii) speak of procedure to be followed by the employees who are in need of accommodation, paragraph 4(b)(i) provides for the forfeiture of HRA even when the accommodation has been offered on its own by the Management whether the application for the same has been made or not. There is no distinction made in this provision between those who have applied and those who have not applied for accommodation. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the distinction sought to be made by the Tribunal is, on the face of it, irrational, particularly taking into consideration the resources spent on constructing the quarters." (Emphasis added) 11. With reference to the scope of judicial review in the matter of housing accommodation, once again the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, (2005) 13 SCC 495 in paragraphs 5 to 8 held as follows: "5. With reference to the scope of judicial review in the matter of housing accommodation, once again the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, (2005) 13 SCC 495 in paragraphs 5 to 8 held as follows: "5. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the Appellate Authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in the matter of policy or to sermonise qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. (See Asif Hameed v. State of J&K1 and Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India2.) The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court, it cannot interfere. 6. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision-making taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 7. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government. 8. The Court should constantly remind itself of what the Supreme Court of the United States said in Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of Chicago3: “The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. 8. The Court should constantly remind itself of what the Supreme Court of the United States said in Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of Chicago3: “The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations, illogical it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is the best is not always discernible, the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of government are not subject to our judicial review.” 12. Apart from this fact, in the present case, the petitioners have also not applied to their Head of the Department to stay in a place other than the official quarters. The petitioners cannot make use of this Court to have an advantage in getting collateral benefits, which are not supported by the relevant Rules of the Government. This Court is not inclined to grant the prayer of the petitioner. Unless a certificate is obtained as per the condition prescribed in paragraph 5 of the said order and unless and until such condition is fulfilled, the petitioners will have to continue to pay House Rent Allowance for the official quarter allotted to them. 13. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly it stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.