Judgment :- The petitioner, working as a Senior Sister, in the Medical Unit of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, Bangalore Complex (for short ‘the Management’), has again knocked the doors of this Court, in the matter of payment of withheld House Rent Allowance (HRA), having been repeatedly rebuffed by the Management. 2. The facts of the case not in dispute are the following: (a) The Management offered appointment to the petitioner for a post of ‘Staff Nurse’. The petitioner reported for duty on 24.07.1985 and was allotted rent-free staff quarter on 08.08.1985. The Standing Orders of the Company, contain the Rules & Regulations governing Pay, HRA, CCA etc., to its employees. Petitioner’s husband, working as a ‘stenographer’ in the respondent-Company, constructed a house at No.21/22, Malleshpalya Extension, Thippasandra Post, Bangalore-75. Petitioner and her husband were not paid HRA on account of they being provided the rent-free staff quarter by the Management. On 25.11.1991, petitioner submitted a representation to surrender staff quarter FA-110 and shift to the house constructed by her husband, by assuring the Management that, her shifting to own house will not affect her duty. Petitioner represented that she would be surrendering the staff quarter on 02.12.1991 and she may be paid HRA from the date of vacation. The request was turned down by stating that, she should be available for attending emergencies in the hospital. (b) Petitioner submitted a representation on 06.12.1991 and stated that she will attend the duty regularly and in emergencies also, since the permanent house is within 1 Km. distance of HAL Township and hence, she may be permitted to vacate and surrender the staff quarter. The request was turned down on 10.12.1991. Petitioner, by communication dated 22.02.1992, informed that she has vacated staff quarter FA-110 on 02.12.1991 and furnished her current address for being incorporated in her personal record and for future correspondence. The Management by a communication dated 07.03.1992 directed the petitioner to continue to stay in the staff quarter. (c) Aggrieved, petitioner filed W.P.14184/1992, which was opposed by the Management. Considering the question, whether the Management can force the petitioner to stay in the quarter allotted to her on rent-free basis, finding the stand of the Management as wholly unwarranted and unauthorized, the writ petition was allowed. However, the question with regard to entitlement or otherwise to HRA was left open to be decided in accordance with law by the Management. However, the question with regard to entitlement or otherwise to HRA was left open to be decided in accordance with law by the Management. The petitioner was directed to handover the key of staff quarter to the Management. (d) Feeling aggrieved, the Management filed W.A.1788/1997, which was dismissed on 20.06.1997. The Management filed C.P.769/1998, which was disposed off on 11.04.2000, with a clarification. (e) The Management by a communication dated 23.2.2001, informed the petitioner that, staff quarter was vacated by her, on her own and she is not entitled for payment of HRA. However, by a communication dated 27.02.2001, petitioner was informed to handover staff quarter on any working day by contacting the Township Office. The Management took over the key of the staff quarter from petitioner on 14.03.2001. (f) Questioning the said decisions and to direct the Management to pay HRA, W.P.23597/2001 was filed, which was opposed by the Management. Finding no case for interference, the petition was dismissed on 03.06.2006. To set-aside the said order and to grant the relief prayed in the writ petition, W.A.1848/2006 was filed, which was disposed off with a direction that, if the petitioner makes a further representation claiming HRA, the same shall be considered by the Management in accordance with law. (g) Petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.01.2008 and sought release of withheld HRA. By a communication dated 20.08.2008, the Management declined to pay HRA. Alleging disobedience, C.C.C.No.607/2008 was filed. Noticing that the respondents have taken a decision as per a communication dated 20.08.2008 and if the petitioner is aggrieved can challenge the same, the contempt petition was closed. (h) Petitioner filed W.P. 27647/2009 to quash the communication dated 20.08.2008 and for grant of consequential reliefs. On a representation made by Mrs. Meera Murthy, Chief Manager (P & A), to the effect that, petitioner’s representation would be considered afresh and order passed in the light of the directions contained in the Division Bench judgment, if extended an opportunity, recording the submission, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned communication was quashed and the Management was directed to pass order on the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, in the light of the Division Bench judgment. Thereafter, the Management declined to grant HRA, as per communication dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure-L). This writ petition is directed against the said order. 3. Thereafter, the Management declined to grant HRA, as per communication dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure-L). This writ petition is directed against the said order. 3. Sri G.R. Narasimha Murthy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, firstly contended that, the action of the respondents in withholding HRA, even after vacating of staff quarter and handing over possession, as per the direction issued on 24.04.1992 in W.P.14184/1992, is intentional and deliberate. Secondly, despite the clarification in the order dated 11.04.2000 passed in C.P.769/1998 and the judgment dated 10.01.2008 passed in W.A.1848/2006 and also the observations made in the order dated 28.01.2010 passed in W.P.27647/2009, the non application of mind shows the contumacious conduct of the respondents, who despite taking key and having allotted the very same quarter to another employee on 30.03.2001, to whom also HRA is not being paid, exhibits the high-handed action against a low paid employee. Thirdly, the impugned endorsement (Annexure-L) is contrary to the undertaking given to the Court in W.P.27647/2009 and the decision taken for nonpayment of HRA is in utter disregard of orders passed, commencing from 07.01.1997 till 28.01.2010, in the writ petitions and writ appeals and hence, the conduct of the respondents requires to be severely deprecated and petitioner compensated by awarding exemplary costs for causing the harassment. 4. Sri K. Kasturi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand contended that, the Standing Orders of the company are applicable to petitioner, who is in the cadre of essential services, was provided with rent-free accommodation, having vacated the staff quarter on her own, is not justified in seeking payment of HRA. Learned counsel submitted that, the claim of petitioner was examined keeping in view the provisions of the Standing Orders of the company and an endorsement, as at Annexure-L, was issued, which being not contrary to law, does not call for interference. Learned counsel contended that, there is neither any arbitrariness nor any illegality, committed by the respondents and the writ petition is devoid of merit. 5. I have perused the writ record. Keeping in view the rival contentions, the point for determination is: Whether the Management has to pay the withheld House Rent Allowance to petitioner? 6. Thematerial facts noticed supra are not in dispute. The respondents have not disputed the fact that, petitioner has not been paid HRA. 5. I have perused the writ record. Keeping in view the rival contentions, the point for determination is: Whether the Management has to pay the withheld House Rent Allowance to petitioner? 6. Thematerial facts noticed supra are not in dispute. The respondents have not disputed the fact that, petitioner has not been paid HRA. The defence putforth by the Management in W.P.14184/1992 to the effect that, the petitioner should necessarily reside in the company staff quarter, was held as ‘wholly unwarranted and unauthorized’ and the endorsement questioned in the said writ petition was quashed. The question of entitlement to HRA was left open to be decided by the Management, keeping in view the terms & conditions of petitioner’s service, in the light of the relevant Standing Orders and the Rules having bearing on the issue. Petitioner was directed to handover the key of the rent-free quarter to the Welfare Manager (Township) of the company. The challenge putforth to the said order by the Management in W.A.1788/1997, failed with the dismissal of Writ Appeal on 20.06.1997. C.P.769/1998 filed by the Management was disposed off on 11.04.2000, with a clarification, that there may be special exceptions and obviously the present case is treated as one such case. 7. Indisputedly, petitioner handed over the key of the staff quarter on 14.03.2001. even prior to that, the request made for grant HRA, based on the order passed by this Court, noticed supra, was turned down, despite noticing the fact of petitioner having vacated the staff quarter. The said order when questioned in W.P. 23597/2001, having not been accepted, petitioner filed W.A 1848/2006, which was opposed by the Management and while disposing of the appeal, it was observed that, if an allottee of the quarter decides to vacate and live outside the township, will not be entitled for HRA, so long as any quarter of the type vacated by the allottee remains vacant in the township, implying that, the allottee is entitled to HRA, only if any quarter of the type vacated by him does not remain vacant in the township. It was found that, the Management had not stated that any quarter of the type vacated by the petitioner remained vacant in the township. It was also made clear that, the claim of petitioner for HRA should be considered by the respondents afresh in accordance with the relevant rules. 8. It was found that, the Management had not stated that any quarter of the type vacated by the petitioner remained vacant in the township. It was also made clear that, the claim of petitioner for HRA should be considered by the respondents afresh in accordance with the relevant rules. 8. A representation was made on 14.01.2008 (Annexure-R24) and the same was turned down on the ground that, the quarter was vacated by petitioner, on her own, without examining the claim by taking into consideration the observations made in the said judgment dated 10.01.2008. Since C.C.C.607/2008 filed was not entertained and when the said endorsement was questioned in W.P. 27647/2009, it was found as follows: “A bare perusal of the contents of the letter dt. 20.8.2008 does not disclose compliance with the order of the Division Bench in W.A.No.1848/2006. There is no reference to any rule muchless Rule 3.2(c) of the Personnel Manual Book No.4 issued by HAL referred to by Division Bench in paragraph 4 of the order. So also, there is no reference to any other rule or Circular relating to payment of HRA to the petitioner. In the absence of application of mind and reference to Rule applicable to the petitioner, there is non-compliance of the Order of the Division Bench, which borders around contempt”. (Italicized by me for emphasis) 9. The Chief Manager of the respondent-company having appeared and submitted that, petitioner’s representation would be considered afresh and order passed in the light of the directions contained in the order of the Division Bench, if extended an opportunity, recording the submission of the Chief Manager, the writ petition was allowed and the impugned communication therein was quashed and the Chief Manager (P & A) was directed to pass an order on the representation made, in accordance with law and in the light of the observations of the Division Bench. The Management has again rebuffed the petitioner and has not paid the withheld HRA. 10. The decision taken by the respondent on 26.02.2010, impugned in this writ petition, certainly is not in consonance with the observations contained in the Judgment dated 10.1.2008 passed in W.A. 1848/2006 and also the specific undertaking given by the Chief Manager (P & A) on 28.01.2010, in W.P. 27647/2009. 11. Undeniably, the staff quarter vacated by petitioner was allotted by the respondents on 30.03.2001, to Smt. B. Amala. 11. Undeniably, the staff quarter vacated by petitioner was allotted by the respondents on 30.03.2001, to Smt. B. Amala. It is not the case of the Management, either in the decision taken on 26.02.2010 or in the counter filed to the writ petition, muchless in the affidavit of Mrs. Meera Murthy, filed on 19.09.2011, that a quarter of the type vacated by petitioner remained vacant in the HAL township on and after 14.03.2001. Though this Court while hearing the W.P.27647/2009, found that there was absence of application of mind on the part of respondents in considering the representation of petitioner and that, there was non-compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench and the conduct of the respondents borders around contempt, without taking penal action, in view of the specific undertaking given by Mrs. Meera Murthy, Chief Manager ( P & A), that petitioner’s representation would be considered afresh, in the light of the directors contained in the judgment of the Division Bench, the Management was granted an opportunity to reconsider the representation and pass order. The order passed on 26.02.2010 does not show that, the denial of HRA to the petitioner is on account of any quarter of the type, which was in occupation of petitioner and vacated, remained vacant in the HAL township, at least on and after 14.03.2001. The arbitrariness on the part of the respondents is apparent. 12. The respondents having failed to make out a case to the effect that, the quarter of the type vacated by petitioner remained vacant from 14.03.2001 are bound to pay HRA to petitioner with effect from 01.04.2001, since the quarter vacated by the petitioner was allotted to Smt. B. Amala on 30.03.2001 and thereafter, HRA was not paid even to Smt. B. Amala. 13. The respondents’ conduct was found fault with, while passing the order dated 07.01.1997 in W.P.14184/1992. In the order dated 11.04.2000 passed in C.P.769/1998, while appreciating the stand of the Management for insisting on certain categories of employees to reside within a close proximity, it was observed that, there may be special exception and obviously the present case was treated as one such case. The Management did not give any credence to the said observations and had proceeded in its own way. While disposing off W.A.1848/2006 vide Judgment dated 10.01.2008, the position was clarified and the respondents were directed to consider the claim. The Management did not give any credence to the said observations and had proceeded in its own way. While disposing off W.A.1848/2006 vide Judgment dated 10.01.2008, the position was clarified and the respondents were directed to consider the claim. The respondents, did not consider the claim in the light of the observations made, in view of which, their conduct was held as, “bordering around contempt”, in the order dated 28.01.2010 passed in W.P. 27647/2009. Even thereafter, the approach of the Management, in the matter of consideration of the just grievance of petitioner is not different. The respondents by their adamant attitude, have made the petitioner to repeatedly knock the doors of this Court. The orders passed by this Court, noticed supra, has not received the kind of consideration, which is expected from a welfare employer-Government owned company. The petitioner has been made to knock the doors of this Court, again and again, from 1992. Nearly 19 years has elapsed, which is an abominable long period. The respondents, whose defence is false, have harassed the petitioner, which I feel is intentional. Therefore, while deprecating the conduct of the respondents, I am constrained to direct payment of exemplary costs to the petitioner. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed in part. The endorsement of the respondents dated 26.02.2010, as at Annexure-L is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner, within one month from today, the HRA from 01.04.2001, along with costs. Counsel’s fee is quantified at Rs.20,000/-.