Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 280 (PAT)

Mrs. Sheela Jha Wife Of Mr. Ratneshwar Jha And Naseema Khatoon, Wife Of Md. Jamiruddin Ansari v. State Of Bihar

2010-03-05

C.M.PRASAD, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State. 2. From the earlier orders passed in these cases it transpires that all these writ petitions were to be heard along with CWJC No. 9157/1991 and till the disposal of these cases the petitioner/petitioners in each of the cases was not to be denied the House Rent Allowance but the said order was made subject to final decision in these cases. 3. The order sheet of CWJC No. 9157/1991 shows that the same was disposed of along with some other analogous writ petitions such as CWJC No. 12616/1993 by a common Judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court on 24-4-1995. 4. In that Judgment the court considered the main issue as to whether employees of the State Government sharing accommodation with their spouses are entitled to House Rent Allowance or not, particularly, if the spouse is also employed in a Government, Semi Government or even in Private Service. In that context Rule 6 of the Bihar State Employees (House Rent Allowances) Rules, 1980 was noticed and discussed in detail. On the basis of aforesaid relevant rule it was held that there is nothing in the relevant Rule which takes away the right of the employees of the State Government to receive House Rent Allowance where both the husband and wife share accommodation. It was further held that Rule 6(b) merely puts restriction on the quantum of allowance and the notes appended to the said Rule provide for exceptions as to when such restrictions will not be applicable. As a final result those writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to consider the claim of the petitioners for grant of House Rent Allowance in the light of observations made in the Judgment and order and to issue appropriate orders without delay. 5. Admittedly these writ petitions raise similar issues and were required to be heard along with CWJC No. 9157/1991 which has been disposed of by the Judgment noted above dated 24-4-95. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of such Judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.