JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.7 and 8. 3. Heard Mr. Binit Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other respondents. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : (a) “For quashing the letter no.274 dated 11.7.2009 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs.69,275/- with 12% interest; total amount being Rs.85,718/- being the amount of House Rent Allowance for the period from March, 2005 to 12th November, 2008 being completely illegal and arbitrary (as contained in Annexure – 9 to this writ application). (b) For holding and declaring that the petitioner is entitled to the admissible House Rent Allowance at the rate of 5 % of his basic pay for working on the post of President, District Consumer Forum, Jamtara. (c) For any other appropriate relief(s), for which the petitioner may be found entitled in law and equity. (d) For quashing letter no.197 dated 19.05.2009 issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara under the signature of the Deputy Collector, Establishment whereby and whereunder the claim regarding house rent allowance of the husband of the petitioner has been rejected (as mentioned in Annexure – 8 of the writ application vide I.A. No.1882 of 2021. (e) For quashing letter no.1394 dated 27.04.2009 issued by the Additional Finance Commissioner, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the claim regarding house rent allowance of the husband of the petitioner (original petitioner) has been rejected as contained in Annexure – 12 of the interlocutory application (vide I.A. No.1461 of 2022).” Arguments of the Petitioner 5. This writ petition was originally filed challenging letter no.274 dated 11.07.2009 (Annexure-9) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.69,275/- with 12% interest total being Rs.85,718/- being the amount of house rent allowance for the period from March, 2005 to 12th of November, 2008 and the petitioner also sought for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to admissible house rent allowance @ 5 % of his basic pay for working on the post of President, District Consumer Forum, Jamtara. Annexure – 8 dated 19.05.2009, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit the aforesaid amount is also under challenge. Annexure – 8 dated 19.05.2009, whereby the petitioner was asked to deposit the aforesaid amount is also under challenge. Annexure – 12 which is letter no.1394 dated 27.4.2009 issued by Additional Finance Commissioner, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the aforesaid claim has been rejected in view of Rule 104 of the Financial Rules stating that though the original petitioner was appointed as President, Jamtara District Consumer Forum vide letter dated 01.02.2004, but at that point of time, the petitioner did not make claim of house rent allowance before the Accountant General in proper time. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders contained in Annexures-8, 9 and 12 has submitted that it is not in dispute that the original petitioner was appointed as President in the District Consumer Forum, Jamtara and joined on 01.02.2004. He submits that it has been mentioned in the writ petition that he made a representation that the pay slip was not issued to the original writ petitioner and the original writ petitioner received the pay slip for the first time only on 16.03.2005. Thereafter, within 3 years, the original petitioner wrote letters to the Accountant General (A & E) Jharkhand (respondent no.7) dated 24.09.2007 and 07.07.2008 requesting the said authority to issue a fresh pay slip incorporating the house rent allowance and conveyance allowance and subsequently, on 16.09.2008, the Deputy Collector Establishment, Jamtara had asked for some papers and documents including new pay slip. Consequently, the petitioner again requested the respondent no.7 vide letter dated 14.10.2008 for issuing a fresh payslip and later on the petitioner resigned from the post on 12.11.2008. The respondent no.8 informed the petitioner vide letter dated 15.01.2009 (Annexure – 6) that no city compensatory allowance is admissible for Jamtara town, therefore conveyance allowance is not admissible and so far as the claim of house rent allowance is concerned, the claim has been made after lapse of 3 years and per the rules, the claim should be through the Finance Department. 7. 7. The learned counsel further submits that the claim in connection with correction of pay slip incorporating house rent allowance and conveyance allowance was made vide aforesaid representation dated 24.09.2007 within 3 years from the aforesaid date of issuance of pay slip and accordingly the petitioner had raised his grievance before the competent authority within the period of 3 years but since the matter was to be rooted through the Finance Department, the petitioner made a representation dated 14.02.2009 before the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand informing him that he had made the representation within a period of three years from the date of issuance of 1st pay slip issued on 16.03.2005. Ultimately, the petitioner vide impugned order dated 19.05.2009 was informed that the conveyance allowance is not admissible in Jamtara District and consequently the original petitioner deposited Rs.15,200/- being the amount received by him as conveyance allowance. By the same letter, the petitioner was also informed that claim for house rent allowance has been rejected. On account of aforesaid rejection of claim for house rent allowance, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs.69,275 being the amount of house rent allowance with interest @ 12% total amounting to Rs.85,718/- vide another impugned letter dated 11.07.2009. The learned counsel has also referred to the order as contained in Annexure 12 dated 27.4.2009 wherein the claim of the house rent allowance has been denied to the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner did not raise his grievance before the Accountant General within time. 8. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had clearly represented before the Finance Secretary that the grievance was raised within time, but the said aspect of the matter has been ignored while passing the impugned order dated 27.04.2009. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had done whatever he could have done for the purposes of claiming the house rent allowance after he received the first pay slip and there is no laches on the part of the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the impugned orders, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is otherwise entitled to house rent allowance. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the impugned orders, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is otherwise entitled to house rent allowance. The learned counsel has further referred to the paragraph 20 of the writ petition wherein, he has mentioned that the petitioner is entitled to house rent allowance as admissible to him and the same has been paid to all the Presidents of District Consumer Forums in the State of Jharkhand and this statement is not in dispute from the side of the respondents. Arguments of the State. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has referred to the two counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the Respondent no-5. The learned counsel refers to para 7 of the supplementary counter-affidavit and submits that it has been mentioned that as per Notification No.1637 dated 17.12.2003, the salary and other allowances are to be paid in terms of Rule 3 (1) of Jharkhand Consumer Protection Rules, 2011 and in the said notification, house rent allowance and conveyance allowance are not clearly mentioned. 11. However, during the course of argument, it is not in dispute that the entitlement of the petitioner to receive house rent allowance is not in dispute in the impugned orders and the only reason for denial of the claim in the impugned orders is that the petitioner has not claimed the house rent allowance within time. With respect to para 20 of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Jharkhand has no response. Rather para 20 of the writ petition has been responded to in the first counter-affidavit in para 17, wherein it has been stated that the question of petitioner being entitled for house rent allowance and conveyance allowance is different from the very fact that the petitioner had drawn the house rent allowance and conveyance allowance without issuance of proper pay slip by the competent authority i.e., the Accountant General. It has also been mentioned in para 9 of the said counter-affidavit that the petitioner is duly entitled to get his admissible house rent allowance, but in this case, he has drawn the said amount without getting proper pay slip of the legal authority from Accountant General. Arguments on behalf of the Accountant General, Jharkhand 12. It has also been mentioned in para 9 of the said counter-affidavit that the petitioner is duly entitled to get his admissible house rent allowance, but in this case, he has drawn the said amount without getting proper pay slip of the legal authority from Accountant General. Arguments on behalf of the Accountant General, Jharkhand 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.7 and 8 has also submitted that the claim was initially declined by respondent nos.7 and 8 as the matter was placed after expiry of three years and therefore it was to be rooted through the Finance Department. Even as per the respondent nos.7 and 8, no such affidavit has otherwise been filed denying the claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel has submitted that the issuance of house rent allowance or other allowance on the recommendation of the employer, was to come from the Finance Department. It is however not in dispute that in the year 2007 vide letter dated 24.09.2007, the petitioner had requested the Accountant General (respondent no.7) to issue fresh pay slip incorporating the house rent allowance and also the fact that first pay slip was issued to the petitioner only on 16.03.2005. Findings of this Court 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as President of the District Consumer Forum, Jamtara vide Annexure – 1 dated 17.12.2003; joined on 01.02.2004; made a representation for issuance of pay slip on 18.10.2004 and the pay slip was ultimately issued to the petitioner for the first time only on 16.03.2005. It is further not in dispute that after receipt of the pay slip, the petitioner on 24.09.2007 and also on subsequent dates requested the respondent no.7 to issue fresh pay slip incorporating the house rent allowance as well as conveyance allowance. It is further not in dispute from the side of the petitioner that the petitioner is not entitled to conveyance allowance and the dispute in the present case is only with regard to entitlement of house rent allowance. The petitioner had again made a request for issuance of fresh pay slip before respondent no.7 on 14.10.2008 and ultimately, he resigned on 12.11.2008. The petitioner had again made a request for issuance of fresh pay slip before respondent no.7 on 14.10.2008 and ultimately, he resigned on 12.11.2008. After his resignation, the respondent no.8 vide letter dated 15.01.2009 as contained in Annexure 6 inter alia informed the petitioner that so far as claim of house rent allowance is concerned, the claim has been placed after lapse of three years and as per rules, the claim should be made through the Finance Department. Consequently, the petitioner made a representation before the Principal Secretary, Finance Department on 14.02.2009 vide Annexure 7 wherein the petitioner had clearly mentioned that he had made a representation before the Accountant General on 24.09.2007 for rectification of his pay slip and therefore he had made the claim within the period of 3 years. However, the Additional Finance Commissioner, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand has passed the impugned letter no.1394 dated 27.04.2009 mentioning therein that the petitioner having not claimed house rent allowance before the Accountant General within time in terms of Rule 104, the claim was rejected. 14. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 27.04.2009 does not deal with the contention of the petitioner specifically raised in the representation dated 14.02.2009 (Annexure 7) that the claim was made by the petitioner on 24.09.2007 itself before the Accountant General. From the records of this case, the filing of representation dated 24.09.2007 before the Accountant General for rectification of the pay slip, inter alia, to incorporate the house rent allowance is not in dispute from the side of the respondent nos.7 and 8. 15. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had raised his grievance regarding non-inclusion of his house rent allowance in his pay slip vide representation dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure-3) before the respondent nos. 7 and 8 and admittedly, the pay slip was issued for the first time on 16.03.2005, therefore the petitioner had made his claim within 3 years from the date of issuance of the pay slip before the Accountant General. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.04.2009 (Annexure – 12) refusing to grant house rent allowance to the petitioner by mentioning that the petitioner did not claim the same before the Accountant General within time, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is set aside. 17. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.04.2009 (Annexure – 12) refusing to grant house rent allowance to the petitioner by mentioning that the petitioner did not claim the same before the Accountant General within time, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly, the same is set aside. 17. This Court also finds that the petitioner has made specific statement in para 20 of the writ petition that the house rent allowance is being paid to all the Presidents of District Consumer Forum which is not in dispute from the side of the respondents. The contention of the counsel for the State of Jharkhand by referring to supplementary counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.5 vide affidavit dated 26.12.2019 by referring to notification no.1637 dated 17.12.2003 is that house rent allowance is not clearly mentioned in the notification but the fact that it is being paid to all the Presidents of District Consumer Forum is not in dispute. 18. The impugned orders clearly mention that the petitioner was not entitled to travelling allowance, but so far as entitlement of house rent is concerned, entitlement of the same is not in dispute as per the impugned orders, except the allegation that the petitioner did not claim within the prescribed time. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and having held that the petitioner had claimed the house rent allowance within time, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 11.07.2009 (Annexure-9) asking the petitioner to deposit the house rent allowance along with interest as well as the impugned order dated 19.05.2009 (Annexure-8) asking the petitioner to deposit the house rent allowance are also not sustainable, which are accordingly set aside. 20. This writ petition is allowed. 21. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.