JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was working as the Assistant Teacher under the Education Department since 02.07.1968 and had retired from the service on 30.11.2005 (afternoon). After 4 years of his retirement, the present writ petition has been filed by him seeking the following relief: “After hearing the parties be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the house rent allowance w.e.f. 01.01.1992 to the date of retirement of the petitioner on 30.11.2005 amount to Rs. 76,525/- (Rupees seventy six thousand five hundred twenty five) only along with interest.” 3. It appears that on 01.02.1992, the petitioner filed a representation to the Headmaster, Nalchar, Class-XII School, Nalchar, Tripura West raising his protest that he was paid the salary for the month of January, 1992 excluding house rent and he had accepted that salary under protest. Thereafter, the petitioner waited for long 17 years to approach before the Court to claim the house rent allowance. 4. By filing the reply, the respondents have categorically stated that the petitioner was under obligation to file a joint declaration with his spouse certifying their respective place of stay/accommodation in which he is living and the fact that his spouse is not drawing any house rent allowance. Any drawal of the house rent allowance without such certification will render the concerned DDO liable for causing the unlawful loss to the state exchequer. The respondents have categorically stated further that despite insistence from concerned DDO, the petitioner did not submit such joint declaration in terms of the memorandum dated 30.10.1991 (Annexure-R/1 to their reply). 5. Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that having referred to the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner on 01.02.1992 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) that the petitioner filed the declaration before the DDO on 16.01.1992. 6. That apart, Mr. 5. Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously submitted that having referred to the reply to the show cause filed by the petitioner on 01.02.1992 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) that the petitioner filed the declaration before the DDO on 16.01.1992. 6. That apart, Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that by the memorandum dated 23.04.1986 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) a clarification was made by the Finance Department as referred in paragraph 5(i) of the Office Memorandum of even number dated 23.04.1986 in the following terms: “.....in case where both the husband and the wife are the employees of the State Government, the allowance will be admissible either to the husband or to the wife, whichever is more favourable to them, provided that either or both of them are otherwise eligible and posted at the same station. If they are posted in different station, the allowance will be admissible to both of them.” 7. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the relevant point of time the petitioner was posted in Nalchar Class-XII School, Nalchar, Tripura West, whereas his spouse was posted in Malagarh Girls Higher secondary School. The distance between Melagarh and Nalchar is more than 8 - 9 Km and to the effect a certificate has been issued by the Sub-divisional Officer (PWD). That certificate has been annexed with the writ petition. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that no copy of the joint declaration has been filed by the petitioner. No such declaration was ever made. 8. That apart, he has relied on the memorandum dated 23.11.1991 (Annexure-R/2) whereby the DDO had asked 12 Assistant Teachers and other employees to submit their joint declaration. The petitioner avoided to receive the said memorandum dated 23.11.1991 and the serving clerk had given in this regard that the petitioner and two others did not receive the memorandum by affixing their signature on a copy. They told him that they would receive from the Headmaster of Nalchar Higher Secondary School. 9. The petitioner avoided to receive the said memorandum dated 23.11.1991 and the serving clerk had given in this regard that the petitioner and two others did not receive the memorandum by affixing their signature on a copy. They told him that they would receive from the Headmaster of Nalchar Higher Secondary School. 9. Even in the writ petition, in Para-5, the petitioner has averred as under: “It is pertinent to mentioned here that at that relevant point time the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Teacher under the respondent No. 3 and his wife Smt. Shibani Bhattacharjee (Deb) was serving at a different School i.e. in Melaghar Girls Higher Secondary School at Melaghar, Sonamura, West Tripura which is at a distance of about 10 Kms. from the school, where the petitioner was serving at that time. Due to the aforesaid reason the petitioner did not submit any joint declaration. According to Memorandum No. F.5(15)FIN/(G)/75 dated 23.04.1986 issued by the Under Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura if the Husband and wife serving under the State Government under posted in different station in that case the house rent allowance will be admissible to both of them.” 10. Since the petitioner did not file the joint declaration, he was asked to show cause by the memorandum dated 09.01.1992 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) that why a disciplinary action shall not be taken against him. The petitioner filed the reply on 01.02.1992 urging the competent authority to drop the disciplinary proceeding as contemplated. The petitioner has also admitted that he did not get the house rent allowance with the salary of month of January, 1992 and he has immediately informed the Headmaster, Nalchar Higher Secondary School raising the protest for non-disbursement of the house rent allowance. 11. The petitioner has also averred that by the memorandum dated 20.07.1992 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), the Director of School Education informed the Headmaster, Nalchar Higher Secondary School not to disburse the house rent allowance to the petitioner. Though, the petitioner had received such copy in time the petitioner did not challenge the said memorandum. However, the petitioner has stated that on 01.02.1994, he had submitted a representation for disbursing his house rent allowance but the house rent allowance was thereafter not disbursed in his favour. 12. Though, the petitioner had received such copy in time the petitioner did not challenge the said memorandum. However, the petitioner has stated that on 01.02.1994, he had submitted a representation for disbursing his house rent allowance but the house rent allowance was thereafter not disbursed in his favour. 12. To explain such delay in filing the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he was so busy regarding prosecution of the study of his son and medical care of his parents that he could not approach this Court. According to Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner this constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the latches in filing the writ petition. 13. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that unless a joint declaration is filed according to the House Rent Allowance Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to get any house rent. The petitioner, even after getting the memorandum from the Director of School Education, did not file such declaration or its copy is he had filed earlier, to the competent authority. After appreciated the averments, documents and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that the respondents have acted without any arbitrariness inasmuch as the petitioner was asked to file joint declaration signed by his wife and himself, but he did not submit such joint declaration, at least such declaration has not been placed either with the writ petition or by any other legal means. 14. That apart, after 16 years from the date of receiving the communication from the Director of School Education as stated, this writ petition has been filed and the explanations extended for latches are not at all the explanations those can be accepted, as satisfying by this Court. Having observed thus, this writ petition is hit by serious latches and being bereft of merit stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.