JUDGMENT : K.M. THAKER, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.B Pujara, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Swapneshwar Gautam, learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 2. This petition is filed by the Union representing primary teachers employed in different primary schools within District Surat. The names and details of the primary teachers concerned in this petition are mentioned at Annexure-A, (Colly) pages 19 to 29. 3. On behalf of the said concerned teachers union has prayed, inter alia that:— “12 (a) To hold and declare that the petitioners-primary teachers-described in statement at Ann. “A” colly are entitled to HRA @ 15% of the pay and not @ 5% of the pay. (b) To quash and set aside the impugned G.R dated 25.2.2000 as per Annexure C in so far as it provides that the employees serving within 8 kms outside the limits of classified city shall not be paid HRA on the basis of city but on the basis of classified place (5%) w.e.f 1.3.2000 (c) To direct the the respondents to pay HRA @ 15% w.e f. 1.3.2000 onwards and to continue to pay on the same basis to the petitioners-primary teachers described in the statements of Ann. “A” Colly. (d) To quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 20.1.2005 and 21.2.2005 passed by the respondent No. 1 as per Annexure-D for recovering HRA already paid during the years 1996-97, 1997-98 1998-99 and 1999-2000 from the petitioners -- primary teachers described in the statements of Ann. “A” Colly”. 4. While assailing impugned decision and direction the teachers have also challenged orders dated 20.1.2005, 21.2.2005 as well as G.R dated 25.2.2000 5. The concerned teachers are aggrieved by the decision of the respondent State of altering/reducing the rates for payment of HRA and CLA for the years 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 and they are also aggrieved by-rather more aggrieved by the order directing recovery of the amount paid toward HRA and CLA. 6. So far as factual background is concerned it is averred and stated that:— “2.1 By G.R dated 15.12.1975, the State Government provided for conditions for the drawal of House Rent Allowances (HRA for short). 6. So far as factual background is concerned it is averred and stated that:— “2.1 By G.R dated 15.12.1975, the State Government provided for conditions for the drawal of House Rent Allowances (HRA for short). By further G.R dated 1.9.1978, the Government decided that HRA shall be payable to the Government employees within the area of Urban Agglomeration of classified city at the rate admissible in the classified city and that existing provision for the payment of HRA under para 1(iii) of G.R dated 15.12.1975 will however continue to be applicable only at the places which are within 8 kms of municipal limits of classified cities, but not included within Urban Agglomeration of any city. The list of classified cities was also enclosed with the said GR. In the said list, HRA @ 15% of pay was provided for Ahmedabad (UA), Surat city (UA), Vadodara (Baroda) (UA). Thereafter by circular dated 4.6.84 it was clarified that no separate orders are to be issued for the primary teachers in respect of HRA and that the orders issued by Finance Department from time to time are applicable to all the Government Employees. 2.2 By another circular dated 14.6.1988 certain clarifications were issued about the applicability of G.R dated 15.12.1975 and it was clarified that para 1(iii) of the said GR. would continue to apply. Thereafter a circular dated 21.31989 was issued for payment of HRA to the Talatis of the villages within the radius of 8 kms of the notified cities. Thereafter G.R dated 20.1.1998 was issued revising the rates of H.R.A 2.3 Thereafter the Finance Department issued G.R dated 25.2.2000 as per Annexure-C (impugned) whereby the provisions of paragraph 1 (iii) of the G.R dated 15.12.1975 came to be cancelled and it was stated that the employees serving within 8 kms outside limits of the classified city shall not be entitled to HRA at the rate admissible in the classified city but at the rate applicable at the classified place (5%) in view of G.R dated 20.1.1998 However, it was also specifically stated that the said orders shall come into effect from 1.3.2000 Accordingly the respondents stopped paying HRA @ 15% to the petitioners w.e.f 1.3.2000 and paid HRA 5% only, though the G.R dated 20.1.1998 does not speak of any such reduction in the HRA. The G.R dated 25.2.20000 is therefore required to be quashed and set aside as arbitrary and bad in law. 2.4 The petitioners repeatedly made oral representations to the authorities against the said injustice and requested that when all other Government employees and even the employees of Gujarat Electrify Board and other Boards and the Corporations and Secondary and High Secondary Teachers of Grant-in-Aid Schools were continuing to be paid HRA @ 15% there was no good reason for denying HRA @ 15% to the petitioners-primary teachers only. However, the authorities went on assuring that the grievance shall be redressed but till this date nothing has been done. 2.5 On the contrary, in a shocking and surprising development, the Respondent no. 1 has now issued letter dated 20.1.2005 and 21.2.2005 as per ANNEXURE-D Colly (impugned) to the Head Masters of the concerned primary schools that recovery should be made from the primary teacher of the respective schools for the HRA already paid during the years 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000. In the letter dated 21.2.2005, it has been specifically stated that if the recovery is not effected immediately, then it shall have to be recovered from the salary of the current month.” 7. At the time of hearing of present petition learned advocates for’ the petitioners and respondents jointly made reference of CAV common judgment dated 5.7.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters. In light of the said judgment the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that in the said group of petitions identical issue was raised and similar identical directions, order and resolution were challenged. 7.1 According to learned advocates the dispute raised in present petition is identical and similar to the issue considered and decided in the said judgment dated 5.7.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters. 7.2 Learned advocates further jointly submitted that after examining dispute and rival contentions the Court took into account the suggestion and submission by the State Government (viz. that High Level Committee may be constituted and the said committee will examine all issues related to HRA and CLA and will decide the rate at which HRA and CLA should be paid and the category of the employees who would be entitled for HRA and CLA) and passed appropriate directions. that High Level Committee may be constituted and the said committee will examine all issues related to HRA and CLA and will decide the rate at which HRA and CLA should be paid and the category of the employees who would be entitled for HRA and CLA) and passed appropriate directions. 7.3 Learned advocates also submitted that the Court accepted said submission and suggestion of the State Government and vide judgment dated 5.7.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters the Court directed Government to constitute high power committee and also recommended that the committee should take necessary decision and pass appropriate orders within six months. 8. It is clarified that the committee is constituted however matter is still under consideration. 9. In light of the said order by the Court in group of petitions and also in light of the fact that undisputedly the issue raised in present petition is identical and similar to the issue and dispute considered by the Court while deciding said group of petitions vide judgment dated 5.7.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters and in light of the fact that the committee is already constituted land the State Government is otherwise also going to consider all issues related to the payment of HRA and CLA and having regard to the fact that such decision would constitute policy decision of the State Government which would govern entire subject matter related to HRA and CLA, it appears appropriate that the said committee may consider the grievance and claim of present petitioners as well. 10. Even otherwise, when the State Government takes appropriate decision on the basis of the report/recommendation of the committee constituted pursuant to the judgment dated 5.7.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters, it would also, affect the claim raised in present petition as well. 10. Even otherwise, when the State Government takes appropriate decision on the basis of the report/recommendation of the committee constituted pursuant to the judgment dated 5.7.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters, it would also, affect the claim raised in present petition as well. Having regard to the fact that if the decision which may be taken by the State Government on the basis of the recommendation of the committee is not acceptable to the petitioners in said group of petition and/or in this petition then the grievance against the decision of the State Government would be fresh cause of action, this Court is of the view that the committee constituted by the State Government pursuant to the judgment dated 5.7.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters should also, simultaneously consider the grievance and claim of present petitioners. 11. Therefore following order is passed:— (a) The committee constituted by the State Government pursuant to the judgment dated 5.7.2016 in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters shall also take into consideration grievance and claim of the petitioners concerned in present petition. (b) The said committee shall take appropriate composite decision in respect of all issues related to HRA and CLA raised by the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters as well as in present petition. (c) The committee shall make all efforts to decide said issue expeditiously. (d) Since it is given out by learned advocates, more particularly by learned AGP that the hearing by the committee is yet not concluded, it would be appropriate that the committee shall also grant opportunity to representative of present petitioners. (e) For that purpose it is clarified that the persons concerned in present petition (i.e persons whose names are mentioned at anneuxre-A Colly, page 19 to 29) shall select two representatives from amongst them or from the office bearers of the union, to represent them before the committee and the said committee shall grant opportunity of hearing to the said representative along with representative of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters. (f) The committee shall pass appropriate final order wherein committee shall record detailed reasons supporting its findings and conclusion and decision. (f) The committee shall pass appropriate final order wherein committee shall record detailed reasons supporting its findings and conclusion and decision. (g) In view of the fact that by virtue of interim relief granted in this petition (orders dated 1.3.2005 and 3.5.2002) proposed recovery is stayed by the Court, it is clarified that the said interim relief will remain in operation until the committee takes final decision and for two weeks thereafter. 12. With the above observation and directions, this petition is disposed of in the above terms. 12.1 It is clarified that if ultimately the concerned persons feel 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 present petitioners to once again avail of an appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. It is clarify that the Court has not gone into the merit of the matter. 13. So far as the grievance of the petitioners against proposed recovery and impugned orders directing the recovery of the amount is concerned, learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the decision in case of State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (2015) 4 SCC 334 , the decision in case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India (1994) 2 SCC 521 and the decision dated 4.4.2001 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 578 of 2000. 14. Learned advocate for the petitioners, in particular, placed reliance on paragraph No. 18(i) and (iii) in the decision of Rafiq Masih (supra) and submitted that the amounts which have been paid to the petitioners have been paid in accordance with the Rules, policy and circulars which were applicable and in operation at the relevant time and any payment has not been made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on part of the petitioners and that therefore also question of recovery of the amount paid until now does not survive. 15. 15. Having regard to the fact that the grievance of the petitioners concerned in this petition would be, in light of present order, considered by the committee along with the grievance of the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 1791 of 2007 and other connected matters and also having regard to the fact that while passing final order the committee would certainly take into account above mentioned decisions by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court, any direction with regard to proposed recovery is not passed at this stage. 16. With the aforesaid clarifications the petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. 17. Direct service is permitted.