Judgment :- The petitioners herein were all working as Assistant Agricultural Officers in various places. They have filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction not to recover the House Rent Allowance from their salary till the petitioners occupy the Government quarters in a living condition. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 28.10.2008. Pending the Writ Petition, this Court granted interim injunction on the same day. Subsequently, two applications were filed by the Director of Agriculture in M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 to vacate the interim injunction. 3. In the counter filed by the Joint Director of Agriculture in support of the application dated 12.1.2009, it was stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 as follows: "3....... Recovery of quarters rent from the petitioners salary cannot be done unless the certificate from the Public Works Department stating that the Government quarters are unfit for residential purpose. In the absence of such certificate, the petitioners claim cannot be accepted. 4. I submit that the department has not accepted that the Government quarters are unfit for dwelling purpose. No proposal has been submitted by the petitioners for the repair of quarters to the Public Works Department through the concerned officers. The petitioners have not been permitted to reside in rental houses and not residing in the government quarters allotted to the petitioners without any authorisation from the department is violation of rules. The department is in no way held responsible for the petitioners not dwelling in Government quarters allotted to the petitioner and the repairs if any are carried out through Public Works Department officials." 4. In the counter filed by the Joint Director of Agriculture in support of the application dated 3.2.2009 in paragraph No.3, it has been averred as follows: "It is submitted that the Assistant Agricultural Officer post is created with the aim of assisting farmers. Each and every Assistant Agricultural Officer is responsible for propagating agriculture techniques. To facilitate easy movement of Asst.Agrl.Officer to the field, the Government attached quarters with the post of Asst.Agrl.Officers. Therefore, whenever as Asst.Agrl.Officer happens to join a place he will automatically be allotted with a Government quarters of that place. These quarters are maintained through Public Works Department. Whenever repairs arise in quarters, the repairs are to be carried out by sending necessary proposals to Public Works Department through Head of the Department (i.e) the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai. Therefore, whenever as Asst.Agrl.Officer happens to join a place he will automatically be allotted with a Government quarters of that place. These quarters are maintained through Public Works Department. Whenever repairs arise in quarters, the repairs are to be carried out by sending necessary proposals to Public Works Department through Head of the Department (i.e) the Commissioner of Agriculture, Chennai. If the Government quarters are unfit for residential purpose, necessary certificate from the Public Works Department has to be obtained by the petitioners. Without getting the specific certificate from the Public Works Department officials, the petitioners claim that the Government quarters allotted to them are unfit to reside is not sustainable." 5. In an identical circumstance, similar matter came up before this Court in W.P.No.2064 of 2010. This Court rejected the claim made by the petitioners by a speaking order dated 5.2.2010. In that case, in paragraphs 10 to 13, it was observed as follows: "10. 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." 6. 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. 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. 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. 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) 7. 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&K and Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India.) 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. 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 Chicago: “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.” 8. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. All the connected Miscellaneous Petitions stand closed.