ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant was a writ petitioner before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. She is a State Government employee. She was being paid house rent allowance. Her husband, who is a Central Government employee, was also being paid house rent allowance. The respondent State, therefore, stopped paying house rent allowance to the appellant with effect from February, 1998. The order in this behalf was challenged before the State Administrative Tribunal. The application having been dismissed, the writ petition was filed. The High Court dismissed the writ petition. In its view, since the appellant and her husband were "government servants and the house rent allowance is being paid to the husband, the wife is not entitled to receive the house rent allowance".

3. Having heard counsel, we are satisfied that the High Court was in error inasmuch as clause 13 of Fundamental Rule 48-A, upon which it relied, itself says "if more than one member of a family (e.g. husband, wife, son, daughter-in-law etc.) are government servants and they stay in the same house" the house rent allowance is payable to only one of them. In the first place, "government servants" in this context can only mean State Government servants. In the second place, the High Court did not take into account, what is, admittedly, a fact namely, that the appellant was residing in a separate house from her husband and was paying the rent thereof. For both reasons, the quoted provision in the rule does not debar the appellant from claiming house rent allowance.

4. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. The State Government shall pay to the appellant house rent allowance as admissible with effect from February, 1998. No order as to costs.

(C.R.) Appeal allowed.

*************