Judgment :- A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. The short question that falls for consideration in this Petition is whether the employees of Ordanance Factories the Petitioner-Union of India, viz., the Ordanance factory Board are entitled to House Rent Allowance (HRA) after they had constructed their own respective houses by arranging loans and after shifting to their own accommodation on the ground that they have not obtained “non-availability Certificate” in respect of official residential accommodation. The answer must be given in the negative for the following reasons. 3. It is not in dispute that Employees who have applied for allotment of Government accommodation from the General pool of residential accommodation and have not been allotted their entitled type of accommodation due to non-availability of the accommodation would be entitled to claim House Rent Allowance(HRA). The submission made on behalf of the Petitioner is that the Central government Employees who are offered official residential accommodation but they refused to occupy the same would not be entitled to claim HRA. 4. The respondent-employees are occupying various posts i.e Machinist , Trained Graduate Teacher, Supervisor, Orderly, Laborers B’ Grade etc. in the Ordanance factories controlled by Petitioner-Union of India/Ordinance Board. The respondents have constructed their respective houses after arranging Loan and after Construction of their houses shifted to their own accommodation. Thus they are not occupying the government accommodation though available and offered to them by the Administration. Respondents made a grievance that after shifting to their own houses the HRA was stopped and has not been paid to the respondents by the Petitioner .The Respondents after their request for HRA was rejected by the Petitioner on the ground that they had not obtained the Non availability certificates as prerequisite condition for the payment of HRA, filed independent Original Applications O.A. no 2001/2010 to 2012/2010 raising grievance of non payment of HRA. The original Applications filed by the Respondent no 2 to 13 were allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order .The Petitioner challenged it before us mainly on the ground that the Office Memorandum No. 120341/88Pol .III dated 27.06.2001 of the Government of India, Directorate of estates ,New Delhi , would govern the present case. The original Applications filed by the Respondent no 2 to 13 were allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order .The Petitioner challenged it before us mainly on the ground that the Office Memorandum No. 120341/88Pol .III dated 27.06.2001 of the Government of India, Directorate of estates ,New Delhi , would govern the present case. The relevant portion of the said paragraph reads as follows: “It has been found that the General Pool Accommodation in Certain types are presently surplus in five cities: Kolkata, Shimla, Faridabad, Ghaziabad and Nagpur. It has therefore been decided that the Govt Servants who are eligible for General Pool Accommodation but who do not submit applications for such accommodation or those who after submitting such applications refuse to accept the accommodation offered/allotted or those who after having accepted accommodation surrender it , may be paid HRA, if otherwise admissible, without obtaining ’No Accommodation Certificate’ from the Directorate of Estates or its regional offices as the case may be in respect of all types of accommodation at the under mentioned stations: 1. Delhi 4. Chandigarh 2 Mumbai 5. Bangalore 3 Chennai 6. Indore” In another Govt of India Ministry of Finance Office memorandum no F. 12034/1/2007 Pol. III, dated 14/11/2007 there was review of demand-availability situation in cities having General Pool accommodation to determine the admissibility of HRA to the Central Government employees. In the city of Nagpur since it has a surplus stock of Central Government ‘s General pool residential accommodation (GPRA)administered by Directorate of Estates , employees eligible for the same shall be able to draw HRA only if they can produce a ‘No Accommodation Certificate” The policy is applicable to the Central Government Employees in Nagpur amongst other notified cities .Necessary directions in this regard as to the current policies are issued by the central government to the heads of the departments and heads of all the offices concerned. In other words therefore for Nagpur city obtaining ‘No Accommodation Certificate’ for government servant is necessary to claim HRA as may be payable or admissible. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Tribunal (CAT) was in error to pass the impugned order without considering the settled principle of law and HRA and CCA general rules and guidelines by office memorandums issued from time to time. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the Tribunal (CAT) was in error to pass the impugned order without considering the settled principle of law and HRA and CCA general rules and guidelines by office memorandums issued from time to time. Central administrative Tribunal making reference to it’s earlier decisions observed that the requirement of obtaining the “No Accommodation Certificate “as a prerequisite is not shown to have been emanated from the binding law or statutory rules while allowing the Original applications filed by the respondents herein . Our attention is brought to the ruling by the Apex Court in Director, Central Plantation crops Research Institute vs. M Purushottaman and others reported in AIR 1994 SC 2541 . It is explained thus in Para 4 : ”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. The 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 the HRA, The management cannot be saddled with double liability, viz., to construct and maintain the quarters as well as to pay the HRA. This is the rationale of the provisions of paragraph 4 of the said Government Office Memorandum. It is for this reason again that paragraph 4 [b] (I) provides that the 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 it.” In para 9, Honourable Supreme Court further observed: “9. The HRA would be covered by the definition of Compensatory Allowance. It is compensation in lieu of accommodations. This definition itself further makes it clear that compensatory allowance is not to be used as a source of profit. It is given only to compensate for the amenities which are not available or provided to the employee. The HRA would be covered by the definition of Compensatory Allowance. It is compensation in lieu of accommodations. This definition itself further makes it clear that compensatory allowance is not to be used as a source of profit. It is given only to compensate for the amenities which are not available or provided to the employee. The moment, therefore, the amenities are produced or offered, the employee should cease to be in receipt of the compensation which is given for want of it....” 5. Thus it appears that HRA is a statutory right, and can be subjected to restrictions which are reasonable. Furthermore, it appears clear that the employee must have a right to get House Rent Allowance (HRA) as per existing Rules or Decisions of The Government of India which have binding force or a contract. It is not a matter of right, it is an compensatory allowance given by an employer to an employee towards the rental accommodation expenses of the employee when Government is unable to provide residential accommodation suitable for the residence of it’s employee. The employee if own his property he may not be entitled to claim the HRA, because HRA is paid to Central Govt. employees to compensate them partly for the especially higher rents which they have to pay for hired or rented residential accommodation in big cities, but not as a source of profit.. HRA is paid at different slab rates in different cities and for this purpose cities have been classified with reference to their growth and population. For the drawl of HRA, a Govt. servant has to incur some expenditure on rent/contribute towards rent or pay/contribute towards house or property tax and furnish a certificate to that effect as per Annexure-II in Para.8 of Swamy’s Compilation of FR & SR, Part-V, HRA and CCA. In our opinion the Central government regulations which are in force unless they are declared as arbitrary or illegal would govern the Central government Employees. In our opinion the Central government regulations which are in force unless they are declared as arbitrary or illegal would govern the Central government Employees. In our opinion unless a binding law or specific Regulation governing is pointed out for payment of HRA to the respondents employees of Ordinance Factories the Petitioner-Union of India, (viz., the Ordinance factory Board ) the respondents are not entitled to claim House Rent Allowance (HRA) as a matter of right after they had constructed their own respective houses by arranging loans and after shifting to their own accommodation without obtaining the ‘No Accommodation Certificate’ (NAC) from the Estate officer concerned. Prima facie in our opinion the prerequisite of NAC as laid down in the office memorandum as operative in city of Nagpur when Central government accommodation is available in surplus and Central government is required to spend huge amounts towards Construction and maintenance Of Government buildings is neither arbitrary nor malafide .The policy decision in this regard must be left to the Government’s sound discretion. The Court ought not to substitute the judgment of the executive by it’s own opinion merely because another view may be possible. The interference in writ jurisdiction may be justified only if the administrative authority concerned transgressed it’s constitutional limits or statutory power. 6. For the above reasons and in the facts and circumstances disclosed before us, the impugned Order is unsustainable and therefore quashed and set aside as Original applications were wrongly allowed by the impugned Order. We direct dismissal of the Original Applications in terms of Prayer (1) in the Writ petition. The Petition is allowed accordingly. Rule is thus made absolute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.