Judgement

VENKATACHALIAH, J.:- Appellant - State of Andhra Pradesh - seeks special leave under Art. 136 to appeal from the order, dt. 24-9-1982 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad (Tribunal) in R.P. 1097 of 1982 upholding certain claims of the respondents, who are Govt. employees, for House Rent Allowance. The question essentially turns upon the true construction of certain Orders issued, from time to time, by the appellant.

2. Special leave is granted. The appeal is taken up for final hearing, heard and disposed of by the judgment.

The material facts necessary for resolving the controversy may briefly be stated :

Respondents who are serving in various posts of the Andhra Pradesh Fire Subordinate Service are, under their conditions of service, entitled to rent-free-accommodation. Before 22-1-1975, wherever they were not provided with such accommodation, they were reimbursed to the extent of the actual rents paid by them subject to their vouching for the actual expenditure in that behalf. However, by G.O. Ms. No. 15 dt. 21-2-1975, appellant granted to its employees who hold posts to which the benefit of the rent-free accommodation is attached and who are not provided with such accommodation, 15%, of their pay towards house rent allowance in lieu of such accommodation.

Subsequently, pursuant to and in implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commissioner in that behalf, appellant issued another G.O.Ms. No. 16 dt. 10-1-1980 the operative part of which is in terms following :

"3. Government, after careful consideration, have decided to accept the recommendation of the Pay Revision Commissioner. They accordingly, hereby order that where an officer holding a post to which rent free accommodation is attached is not provided with such accommodation, he shall be allowed to draw 10% of his basic pay, subject to a maximum of Rs. 150/- per month as additional amount of House Rent Allowance, in addition to the normal House Rent Allowance, if any, allowable at the place where he is posted."

(underlining supplied)

The controversy in these proceedings pertains to the scope of this order, whether on a proper construction, this later order is susceptible of the understanding that the benefit under it is cumulative with and not in substitution of G.O.Ms. No. 15 of 22-1-1975.

The occasion and need for clarifying this having arisen, appellant by its further order G.O.Ms. No. 158, dt. 20-5-1982, clarified what, according to it, is the true scope and import of G.O.Ms. No. 16 of 10-1-1980. Appellant said that the benefits of the said G.O. 16 were not in addition to and cumulative with but was in supersession and substitution of the earlier G.O.Ms. No. 15 of 22-1-1975. This clarification issued by the appellant on 20-5-1982 was challenged by the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the benefits under G.O.Ms. No. 15 and G.O.Ms. 16 were cumulative and complementary; that the view of the appellant that, the first order ceased to exist after the promulgation of the second was erroneous and that the purported clarification issued by G.O.Ms. No. 158, dt. .25-9-1982 virtually deprived respondents of their entitlement to the legitimate quantum of the House Rent Allowance. Tribunal accordingly, declared G.O.Ms. No. 158 of 20-5-1982, as invalid and inoperative. The correctness of this view is assailed in this appeal.

3. G.O.Ms. No. 16, dt. 10-1-1980 was, it is common ground, issued to implement the recommendations of the Commissioner for pay revision. It, therefore, becomes relevant to know what the recommendations in regard to the House Rent Allowance of Government employees who are entitled to rent free quarters are. The Commissioner took note of the circumstance that House Rent Allowance, at varying rates appropriate to the places of posting were allowable even in respect of those Government employees who were not entitled to rent-free accommodation and that the class of Government employees who, in public intere