Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1248 (GUJ)

Nitinkumar C. Patel Librarian v. State of Gujarat

2016-07-05

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2016
JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. Since the issues raised, in all the captioned writ applications, are common, those were heard analogously, and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. The writ applicants before me are serving as the 'Primary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers' respectively in the various Government and Grant-in-Aid schools situated at the different places within the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal and its urban agglomeration area, which comprises of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation area and the extended limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 3. Some of the writ applicants are also the members of the non-teaching staff of the said schools. 4. The writ applications have been filed seeking the benefits of the rate of House Rent Allowance (for short, 'H.R.A.') and Compensatory Local Allowance (for short, 'C.L.A.') in view of the various amendments to the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998 with effect from 1st January 1996, which are statutory in nature and the consequent resolution of the State Government dated 20th January 1998. 5. The Government of Gujarat issued a resolution dated 15th December 1975, in its Finance Department, laying down a policy that if any employee serving in the village is not in a position to get accommodation in such village, because of non-availability of the suitable places in such village and on account of such difficulties, if he has to reside in a city, which is within the eight kilometers of the place of the employment, then he would be entitled to the H.R.A. at the rate of 15% of the monthly salary. 6. The State Government noticed that some of the employees were misusing the said provisions of Clause (iii) of the resolution by procuring false or incorrect certificates. 7. In view of the above, the State Government issued another resolution dated 20th January 1998 on the basis of the revised central pay under the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1998 with effect from 1st January 1996 with a view to meet with the categories of cities classifying them as A-1, A, B-1 and B-2 for the purpose of the H.R.A. and C.L.A. The category is as under: • A-1 Cities 30% of the actual basic pay drawn was the H.R.A. fixed. • A, B-1 & B-2 Cities 15% of the actual basic pay drawn was the H.R.A. fixed. • A, B-1 & B-2 Cities 15% of the actual basic pay drawn was the H.R.A. fixed. • 'C' type of cities 7.5% of the actual basic pay drawn was the H.R.A. fixed. • For unclassified cities 5% of the actual basic pay drawn was the H.R.A. fixed. • Similarly, the Compensatory Local Allowance also instead of the percentage of the basic pay a fixed amount based on the pay scale of the basic pay was fixed. The amendment in the statutory Rules, Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules 19987 was thus made by the Government and the cities were said as Ahmedabad (UA) means Ahmedabad Municipal limits and its urban agglomeration constitution. The Ahmedabad UA and all employees serving in the concerned classification of city where their place of duty exists were to be given H.R.A. and C.L.A. As stated above. 8. Thereafter, by a resolution dated 26th February 2000, the State Government declared that the employees would be entitled to receive the H.R.A. and C.L.A. in the classified cities, according to the Government Resolution dated 20th January 1998 on the basis of those urban agglomeration, which were published on the basis of the 1991 census. The Ahmedabad urban agglomeration with various areas including the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation with its extended limits and other outer regions were included to form the Ahmedabad agglomeration. The same was the position in relation to the city of Surat. 9. The resolution referred to above was challenged by few residents of Baroda, in the case titled N.R. Parikh v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (2) GLH 657. This Court held that the Government Resolution of the year 2000 was just and legal, and only those employees, whose place of service would fall within the urban agglomeration of the classified cities, would be entitled to get the H.R.A. and C.L.A. 10. In the year 2006, with effect from 14th February, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation extended its limits, and accordingly, within the extended limits, formed the part of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. 11. The General Administration Department of the State Government, on 12th February 2009, took a decision to accept the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 1st January 2009. Accordingly, the classification of the cities, which were previously A-1 were given "X" status, "Y" were A, B-1 and B-2 cities. 11. The General Administration Department of the State Government, on 12th February 2009, took a decision to accept the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 1st January 2009. Accordingly, the classification of the cities, which were previously A-1 were given "X" status, "Y" were A, B-1 and B-2 cities. By amending the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009, with effect from 1st April 2009, it was made clear that in the case of "X" cities with population of more than 50 lacs, the rate of H.R.A. shall be payable at the rate of 30% of the Pay Band plus the Grade Pay, and in relation to the "Y" type of cities, it was payable at the rate of 20%. 12. On 27th February 2009, the State Government issued a resolution stating that in view of the introduction of the revised pay structure under the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009, the earlier resolution dated 20th January 1998, as amended from time to time, the H.R.A. and C.L.A. shall be admissible at the rate of 30% for the "X" type of cities and 20% for the "Y" type of cities. 13. The Deputy Director, serving in the office of the census for population at Gandhinagar, by his communication in June 2011 informed that the Central Government, on the basis of 2011 census, had taken a decision as regards the various urban agglomeration considering the various criteria, and that, the urban agglomeration of 2001 census would continue in 2011 census. On the basis of the 2011 census, the status of Ahmedabad, now, falls in the "X" category of cities, and employees are entitled to 30% of the H.R.A. 14. On 30th May 2015, the Government of India upgraded certain cities and towns on the basis of the 2011 census for the purpose of the grant of H.R.A. to its employees, and the Ahmedabad Urban Agglomeration under the reclassification is shown as "X" cities. A consequential memorandum was issued by the Government of India dated 21st July 2015 on the basis of the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations stating that the Ahmedabad Urban Agglomeration is classified as "X" city on the basis of the 2011 census, and was thus made a Metro city. 15. It is the case of the writ applicants that Ahmedabad is now a Metro city, and classified as "X" city status. 16. 15. It is the case of the writ applicants that Ahmedabad is now a Metro city, and classified as "X" city status. 16. It is the case of the writ applicants that the Central Government employees, including the C.B.S.E. affiliated schools' employees', serving in the areas falling within the Ahmedabad Metro, as "X" city, have already started receiving the H.R.A. at the rate of 30% and C.L.A. according to the slab from May 2015, and therefore, there is no good reason why the State employees serving within such Ahmedabad Metro area should get only 20%, and that too when the State Government has principally accepted that in the "X" category of cities, 30% of the H.R.A. shall be payable. 17. According to the writ applicants, the discrimination is not justified and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 18. According to the writ applicants, the 2011 census declared by the Central Government has not only been accepted by the State Government, but it forms the basis of its proposal to the Central Government for declaring the city of Ahmedabad together with its urban agglomeration as a Metro city with class "X" status. 19. The Central Government, acting on the representation of the State Government, vide its Notification dated 30th May 2015, upgraded the city of Ahmedabad along with its urban agglomeration, according to the census of 2011, as a city of having classification "X" i.e. the same classification as Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Chennai and other Metros. 20. The lead matter i.e. the Special Civil Application No. 27842 of 2007 came to be filed before this Court. 21. This Court, vide order dated 29th October 2007, issued Rule, and also passed an interim order to the effect that the respondents shall pay the H.R.A. and C.L.A. according to the State Government, Finance Department's Resolution of 2009 (accepting the norms of the Sixth Pay Commission with effect from 1st April 2009) on the condition that the petitioners shall file undertaking to the effect that in the event if they are not successful in the petitions, then they shall refund the amount of 50% H.R.A. as well as C.L.A. with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 22. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants invited my attention to the judgment and order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 721 of 2013 decided on 16th July 2014. The order of the Division Bench reads as under: "1. The present Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.7.2012 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3157 of 1996 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the appellant herein. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that prior to the impugned order dated 8.4.1996 passed by respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer, the concerned teachers were receiving the benefits of House Rent Allowance (HRA for short) and Compensatory Local Allowance (CLA for short) per month. It is the case of the appellant that by virtue of the impugned order dated 8.4.1996 passed by respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer, the recovery of benefits of HRA and CLA being paid to the teachers has been effected since 1.1.1986 and to recover the said amount from the pension of those primary teachers who have expired/superannuated/voluntarily retired and further directed to stop the payment of HRA and CLA to all the primary teachers of Dascroi. The respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer also directed to stop the arrears of the benefits of higher pay-scale granted to the primary teachers which are yet unpaid and which are not to be paid till finalization of PRC. Being aggrieved, the appellant original petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 3157 of 1996. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by judgment and order dated 25.7.2012 which is impugned in the present appeal. 3. The main grievance of the appellant original petitioner in the writ petition was that respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer illegally and arbitrarily passed the order by which the benefits of HRA and CLA paid to the members of the appellant have been ordered to be stopped and consequently, recovery was sought to be effected and directed to stop the arrears of the benefits of higher pay scale granted to the primary teachers which are yet unpaid and which are not be paid till finalization of PRC. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. A.D. Oza for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Harsheel Shukla, learned AGP for respondent No. 3 3. Learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for the appellant has vehemently contended that the action of respondent No. 2 is illegal and arbitrary which takes away the benefits of HRA and CLA conferred upon the members of the appellant. He further submitted that consequential action of recovery pursuant to the impugned order dated 8.4.1996 is also in violation of the principles of natural justice as the members of the appellant have not been given opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order. He submitted that the members of the appellant are working in non-classified villages within the periphery of 8 kms from the municipal limits of the urban city. He further submitted that as per the policy of the Government as contained in Government Resolutions dated 22.10.1975, 15.12.1975 and 1.9.1978, the Government employees whose place of duty is in the proximity of a classified city and who of necessity have to reside within the city may be granted HRA admissible in that city provided that the distance between the place of duty and periphery of the municipal limits of the classified cities does exceed 8 kms and since the members of the appellant were complying with the conditions specified in the said Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975, they were paid HRA after having been sanctioned by the competent authority. 3.1 Mr. Pujara further submitted that during the period of 1990-1991, objection was raised during the audit by the authority concerned and in pursuance of the same, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 8.4.1996. In his submission, when the members of the appellant were working within the periphery of 8 kms from the municipal limit of urban city and they were complying the requisite conditions stipulated in Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the same. Lastly, Mr. Pujara submitted that the impugned order dated 8.4.1996 as well as the judgment and order dated 25.7.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3157 of 1996 are required to be quashed. 4. On the other-hand, learned advocate Mr. A.D. Oza for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned AGP Mr. Lastly, Mr. Pujara submitted that the impugned order dated 8.4.1996 as well as the judgment and order dated 25.7.2012 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3157 of 1996 are required to be quashed. 4. On the other-hand, learned advocate Mr. A.D. Oza for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned AGP Mr. Harsheel Shukla for respondent No. 3 have contended that the impugned orders are perfectly legal and proper in view of the audit objection raised at the time of audit by the authority concerned. It is submitted that the right of individual member to receive HRA/CLA depends upon his individual case and one has to satisfy the concerned competent authority that he/she is living in the city and under compelling circumstances, the individual member of the appellant has to take certificate to that effect and under some misconception, the aforesaid benefits were granted. It is submitted that the employees who are residing within the periphery of 8 kms from the municipal limit of the city are entitled for HRA/CLA and hence, recovery sought to be effected by respondent No. 2 is just and proper which does not call for interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned advocate Mr. K.B. Pujara for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. A.D. Oza for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned AGP Mr. Harsheel Shukla for respondent No. 3 in light of the papers available on record, the question which requires consideration is whether the members of the appellant original petitioner are entitled to receive the benefit of HRA/CLA or not if the place of duty of an employee concerned is situated at a point within 8 kms beyond the municipal limits of a qualifying town, but who are residing within the limits of such a town out of necessity? 7. At this stage, it would be fruitful to mention that the learned Single Judge, after hearing learned advocates for both the sides, has passed the following order. "11. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court and the petition deserves to be dismissed. However, it is required to be noted that subsequently if the petitioner is in a position to show that the members of the petitioner organisation are entitled as per any of the Government Resolutions they shall be paid accordingly. However, it is required to be noted that subsequently if the petitioner is in a position to show that the members of the petitioner organisation are entitled as per any of the Government Resolutions they shall be paid accordingly. Petition stands dismissed accordingly." 7.1 A bare perusal of the aforesaid order clearly indicates that on one hand, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition and on the other-hand, the learned Single Judge has also extended the relief to the petitioner to prove their case whether they are entitled as per any of the Government Resolutions and they shall be paid accordingly. 8. In light of the aforesaid rival contentions raised before us by learned advocates for the parties, we have minutely perused various Government Resolutions issued by the Government from time to time for granting benefits of HRA/CLA. It is also not in dispute that in view of the aforesaid Government Resolutions issued from time to time, such benefits of HRA/CLA have been extended to the concerned employees. 9. The question of stoppage of payment with regard to HRA/CLA has arisen due to audit objection raised by the Local Audit Funds office for the year 1990-1991 wherein it is observed that while making the payment of HRA/CLA in case of some of the employees, payment appears to have been made without due verification in light of the stipulation made in Government Resolution No. PJS/3475/41/M dated 15.12.1975 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Gujarat. In the said audit objection, it is observed that so as to fully comply with the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975, the competent authority is required to undertake the following exercise to verify in each individual case about correctness of such fact, (i) whether an employee is residing within 8 kms radius from the municipal limits and to continue the practice to obtain the certificate in this regard (ii) if an employee concerned has to reside within the radius of 8 kms from the municipal limits out of necessity for want of accommodation from his/her service place and to verify the same, the following documents are required to be kept in the office; (a) certificate stating accommodation is not available near the place of duty; (b) to obtain ration card, municipal tax receipt and electricity bill so as to verify whether an employee is residing in the municipal limits; (c) the competent authority must have accorded approval for up and down of the concerned employee from municipal limits to the place of duty. 10. It appears that on receipt of the aforesaid abstract of the audit report, respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer passed the order dated 8.4.1996 as stated above. 11. During the course of hearing, we have also noticed that in the list, almost 84 villages are shown to be falling within the limit of urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad City as provided in the schedule at page 19 of the compilation, whereas for the same purpose, the District Panchayat Office has certified vide its order dated 8.1.1987 that 42 villages are falling within the limit of urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad City. In this view of the matter it was the duty of the competent authority to verify as to exact number of villages which are falling within the limit of urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad City as stipulated in the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975. Therefore, in our view, the aforesaid exercise is required to be undertaken by the competent authority forthwith to ascertain as to which villages are falling within the limit of urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad City and to decide claim and entitlement of the concerned employees accordingly. 12. Therefore, in our view, the aforesaid exercise is required to be undertaken by the competent authority forthwith to ascertain as to which villages are falling within the limit of urban agglomeration area of Ahmedabad City and to decide claim and entitlement of the concerned employees accordingly. 12. Precisely, on our careful reading of the abstract of the audit report as well as the order passed by respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer on 8.4.1996, it clearly transpires that respondent No. 2 has recorded regarding compliance of the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975 and 12.4.1965, exercise as narrated hereinabove regarding the claim and entitlement of HRA/CLA by the concerned employee is required to be undertaken by the competent authority. Further, it clearly transpires that while making the payment, the duty is cast upon the competent authority to verify whether the claim of the concerned employee falls within the criteria stipulated under the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975. 13. Precisely, in our considered view, the aforesaid abstract of audit report as well as the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 2.5.1991 is in the nature of reiteration of the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975. In the said resolution, the Finance Department, Government of Gujarat has made detailed provision for payment of HRA/CLA to the employees who are entitled under the said Government Resolution and while making the payment, certain verification and certification is also directed to be made. In this view of the matter, nothing new is said either in the audit report or by respondent No. 2. The question that has arise is it is a matter of financial implication and while making the payment of benefit of HRA/CLA, proper verification and certification was needed. Instead of doing the said exercise, it appears that, the authority has stopped the benefits of HRA/CLA without carrying proper verification and certification in each case and the authority on its own stopped the payment of aforesaid benefit of HRA/CLA and other benefits admissible to them. In our considered view, that was not the purpose of audit report. On the contrary, it was in furtherance of the stipulation made in the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975. 14. The gist of the aforesaid Government Resolution clearly stipulates that the employees who are residing within radius of 8 kms of the municipal limit are entitled for the aforesaid benefit of HRA/CLA on production of proof of their residence. On the contrary, it was in furtherance of the stipulation made in the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975. 14. The gist of the aforesaid Government Resolution clearly stipulates that the employees who are residing within radius of 8 kms of the municipal limit are entitled for the aforesaid benefit of HRA/CLA on production of proof of their residence. So far as the employees who are residing in the villages which are classified within radius of 8 kms beyond the municipal limits due to non-availability of accommodation are concerned, while deciding their claims, firstly, the competent authority is required to verify whether the villages in which the concerned employees are residing are falling in the notified urban agglomeration area of the municipal limit and whether the concerned employees are fulfilling and satisfying the conditions stipulated in the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975. 15. In the result, this appeal succeeds in part. The impugned order dated 8.4.1996 passed by respondent No. 2 Taluka Development Officer directing to stop the payment of arrears of benefits of higher pay scale granted to the primary teachers which are yet unpaid and which are not to be paid till finalisation of PRC, to recover the amount of HRA/CLA which are being paid to the primary teachers since 1.1.1986 and recovery thereof is quashed and set aside. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and since the interest of large number of employees is involved, we deem it fit to issue the following directions to the respondents. (i) The respondents to carry out verification and certification needed under the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Gujarat and permit the employees concerned to prove genuineness of their claim and entitlement for HRA/CLA. (ii) As there is financial implication while making the payment of HRA/CLA, the respondent authorities are further directed to ascertain from the controlling authority as to which villages are falling within the radius of 8 kms from municipal limits as there appears variance in the list of villages furnished along with the audit report as well as respondent No. 1. (iii) On completion of the aforesaid exercise, the respondent authorities are directed to decide entitlement of benefits of HRA/CLA to the concerned employees who have satisfied the criteria laid down in the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975 of the Finance Department, Government of Gujarat. (iii) On completion of the aforesaid exercise, the respondent authorities are directed to decide entitlement of benefits of HRA/CLA to the concerned employees who have satisfied the criteria laid down in the Government Resolution dated 15.12.1975 of the Finance Department, Government of Gujarat. (iv) The respondents are directed to carry out the aforesaid directions within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Subject to the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands partly allowed to the aforesaid extent indicated hereinabove. No costs. In view of the above order, Civil Applications do not survive and the same stand disposed of accordingly." 23. Thus, it appears from the judgment of this Court referred to above that the State Government was directed to carry out the exercise within three months to identify the villages falling within the radius of eight kilometers from the Municipal limits. • SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE WRIT APPLICANTS: 24. It has been vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants that the writ applicants are entitled to the H.R.A. and C.L.A. and the denial thereof is not justified in law. 25. The crux of the matter is the interpretation of the Government Resolution and the definition of urban agglomeration i.e. whether the village, where the school is situated, is within the urban agglomeration or not. 26. According to the learned counsel, had the State Government would not have undertaken the necessary exercise, as directed by the Division Bench in the judgment and order referred to above, then probably, by now, this issue would have stood resolved. 27. The State Government has accepted the Fifth Pay Commission and Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, wholly by making the appropriate amendment in the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009, and have accepted even the revised classification with effect from 1st April 2009. Thus, principally agreeing to pay 30% H.R.A. to the cities and urban agglomeration with more than 50 lac population, and therefore, the State Government is bound to pay the decided rate of the H.R.A. since it forms the part of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009. 28. Thus, principally agreeing to pay 30% H.R.A. to the cities and urban agglomeration with more than 50 lac population, and therefore, the State Government is bound to pay the decided rate of the H.R.A. since it forms the part of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009. 28. Even the Government of Gujarat, Finance Department, showing the revised rates of the H.R.A. and C.L.A., at Annexure 'G', page 39, entitles the writ applicants - employees to get the benefit of classification of cities - urban agglomeration and when 2001 census is accepted and the said urban agglomerations are acted upon, there is no reason why the urban agglomerations decided on the basis of 2011 census should be included which the writ applicants are getting as of now. 29. In view of the Government of India changing the classification of Ahmedabad city from A-1 category to "X" category of cities with effect from 1st April 2015, on the basis of census 2011, and thereby, the employees having their place of services within the Ahmedabad urban agglomeration as per census 2011 with Ahmedabad urban agglomeration as "X" classified city, shall get 30% H.R.A. and C.L.A. from 1st April 2015 and the Central Government employees serving in the Ahmedabad urban agglomeration, being "X" category classified city, have been getting 30% H.R.A. and proportionate C.L.A. since 1st April 2015. • STANCE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT: 30. According to the State Government, the different rates for the different classified cities has been fixed at the minimum rate of 10% and maximum 30%. It has been accepted by the State Government that the earlier classification from A-1, B1, B2 has been changed to "X", "Y" and "Z" categories. However, in view of the existing policy, the writ applicants are not justified to seek any relief beyond the policy of the State Government on the basis of the 2001 census. To put it in brief, according to the resolution dated 27th February 2009, modifying the Government Resolution dated 20th January 1998, the writ applicants are not entitled to the H.R.A. and C.L.A. 31. The petitioners, in the present proceedings, are seeking directions for payment of the H.R.A. and C.L.A. as per the circular of the State Government. To put it in brief, according to the resolution dated 27th February 2009, modifying the Government Resolution dated 20th January 1998, the writ applicants are not entitled to the H.R.A. and C.L.A. 31. The petitioners, in the present proceedings, are seeking directions for payment of the H.R.A. and C.L.A. as per the circular of the State Government. In this regard, the case of the State Government, according to the existing policy, is that the cities are classified under the urban agglomeration, by which, a government, employee would be entitled for the H.R.A. and C.L.A. In this regard, those cities not falling under the classified urban agglomeration would not get any benefit of the H.R.A. and C.L.A. It is submitted that the cities, which are not falling under the radius of the eight kilometers, would not be qualified in the urban agglomeration. 32. On behalf of the State Government, it is submitted that the cities are classified into the different categories and based on the classification of cities under the different categories, the payment of the H.R.A. and C.L.A. would be decided. Therefore is no provision in the policy of the State Government for making up and down and that the writ applicants are required to stay at the place of occupation. 33. On behalf of the State Government, it is submitted that a huge burden to the public exchequer would follow once the payments of H.R.A. and C.L.A. are increased. Even though the writ applicants have produced undertakings on record, it would be difficult for the respondents - State to decide the entitlement of each of the Teachers as many have retired. 34. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the writ applicants are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in these writ applications. 35. In the course of the hearing of the matters, it was suggested on behalf of the State Government that the entire issue may be asked to be looked into by a High Power Committee that the State Government may constitute. 35. In the course of the hearing of the matters, it was suggested on behalf of the State Government that the entire issue may be asked to be looked into by a High Power Committee that the State Government may constitute. All the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicants agreed to this and submitted that six or seven persons amongst the writ applicants shall appear before the committee for the purpose of submissions and they will also file written representation in this regard with the necessary materials. I am also of the opinion that the State Government will have to reconsider the entire issue a fresh, more particularly, in the wake of the recent developments, and for that purpose, the decision of the State Government, to constitute a High Power Committee, appears to be quite just and proper. I could have adjudicated the controversy on merits without referring the issue for being considered by a High Power Committee, but as the State Government itself wants to have a re-look or reconsider the issue in the wake of subsequent developments, then I should permit the State Government to adopt the course of action they have proposed. 36. It is understood that the State Government will constitute a committee consisting of the following members: (i) Chief Secretary of the State. (ii) Principal Secretary - General Administration Department (iii) Principal Secretary - Education Department (iv) Principal Secretary - Finance. (v) An Educationist familiar with the subject that the State may choose. 37. The list of representatives, who would be appearing before the committee, is as under:- S. No. Name of Representatives appearing before the Committee on behalf of the writ applicants 1. Narendra Gohel President, Ahmedabad District P.T.F. (Primary Teachers Federation) Bareja Primary School, Daskroi. 2. Ashvinbhai R. Patel Teacher’s Representative Cluster Research Centre (CRC) Coordinator CRC Dhamatran Taluka, Daskroi. 3. Hareshbhai G. Patel Principal, Higher Secondary Sharda Shikshan Tirth High School, Paldi, Kankaj, Taluka Daskroi, Member of Principal Federation 4. Jagivanbhai Patel Secretary, Ahmedabad District Primary Teachers Federation Garodiya Primary School, Sanand, Ahmedabad 5. Karansinh Bihola Head Clerk, Shrimati Manekba Krushi Vidhyalaya, Adalaj, District Gandhinagar 6. Jayendrabhai Bhatt Clerk, Sarvajanik Vidhyalaya, Kanbha, Taluka : Daskroi, Ahmedabad 38. 3. Hareshbhai G. Patel Principal, Higher Secondary Sharda Shikshan Tirth High School, Paldi, Kankaj, Taluka Daskroi, Member of Principal Federation 4. Jagivanbhai Patel Secretary, Ahmedabad District Primary Teachers Federation Garodiya Primary School, Sanand, Ahmedabad 5. Karansinh Bihola Head Clerk, Shrimati Manekba Krushi Vidhyalaya, Adalaj, District Gandhinagar 6. Jayendrabhai Bhatt Clerk, Sarvajanik Vidhyalaya, Kanbha, Taluka : Daskroi, Ahmedabad 38. In view of the above, I pass the following order: (I) The State Government will constitute a committee, as noted above, at the earliest, and the committee shall make all possible endeavours to see that an appropriate decision is taken within a period of six months from the date of the constitution of the committee. (II) The representatives of the writ applicants shall appear before the committee and make their submissions. (III) The committee shall hear those representatives on behalf of the writ applicants. (IV) It shall be open for the representatives to file their written submissions with the necessary materials in that regard. (V) The ad-interim relief, which is operating in favour of each of the writ applicants, shall continue till an appropriate decision is taken by the committee, and the report is filed before the State Government. The ad-interim relief shall also continue thereafter i.e. after the report of the committee for a further period of two months. (VI) The undertakings given earlier by the writ applicants shall continue to operate till the decision is taken by the committee. (VII) The committee shall give detailed reasons in support of its conclusion. 39. With the above observation and directions, all these writ applications are disposed of in the above terms. It is clarified that if ultimately the writ applicants are dissatisfied, in any manner, with the decision of the State Government, which may be taken, on the basis of the report of the committee, then it shall be open for the writ applicants to once again avail of an appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. I clarify that I have otherwise not gone into the merit of the matter. 40. In view of the order passed in the main matters, the connected Civil Applications are also disposed of.