RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. This Writ Petition had been filed by the State mainly being aggrieved by the direction passed by the Tribunal taking away the retrospective application of Annexure.A4 Circular dated 13.4.2005, with regard to the power and authority of the petitioners to realise the rent arrears from 1.11.1998, based on the changed rules/norms; at the same time sustaining the validity of Annexure.A4 Circular which was sought to be challenged by the applicants in the O.A.

2. The sequence of events as revealed from the proceedings is that the respondents 1 to 5, who were holding the office of Chief Conservator of Forest/Conservator of Forest under the State, were provided with residential accommodation and they were satisfying the rent fixed as per the norms/instructions being issued; particularly in conformity with the terms of Annexure.A1 G.O.(MS)No.127/89/PW&T. As per Annexure.A1 Government Order, the rent has to be calculated @8.5% of the basic pay and the occupant had to surrender the HRA as well; the total of which was never to exceed 1,300/-. In other words, the maximum liability, that has to be satisfied in respect of the officers of the cadre to which respondents 1 to 5 belonged was to an extent of 1,300/- and nothing more. By virtue of the next pay revision, pursuant to Annexure.A10 dated 25.11.1998, the rate was brought down to 4% in respect of the concerned category, but the maximum limit/ceiling fixed as 1,300/- per month was taken away. However, it was noted that recovery was not being effected in tune with the stipulation under Annexure.A10 dated 25.11.1998, which had come into effect from 1.11.1998, thus inviting audit objections. This led to various correspondences and the position was sought to be clarified by the Government as per Annexure.A4 Circular dated 13.4.2005, whereby it was observed that the rent had to be satisfied strictly in terms of Annexure.A10 Government Order; as modified pursuant to the Office Memorandum F.No.105/1/2004-IC GOI, Ministry of Finance (Central Government) dated 1.3.2004 whereby 50% of the DA was merged with the basic pay with effect from 1.4.2004 which was to be counted for the purpose of fixation of 'license fee' (which is the term used for rent recovered from the Government employees residing in the Central Government Quarters). It was accordingly clarified by the State Government vide Annexure.A4 Circular, that by virtue of the above proceedings issued by the Ministry/Central Government, the rent for accommodation provided by the Government to All India Service officers with effect from 1.4.2004 shall be @4% of the basic pay; plus Dearness Allowance without any limit. Taking note of the fact that, besides the HRA surrendered by the concerned officers a sum of 300/- alone was being collected every month as rent, which was cited as quite irregular by the Accountant General who had suggested recovery of arrears, Annexure.A4 clarification came to be issued on 13.4.2005 as to actual extent of liability, as given in paragraphs 6 and 7. This was to the chagrin of the respondents 1 to 5 herein who approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.466/2006 with the following prayers:-

(i) issue an order setting aside Annexure A4, A7 and A8.

(ii) issue a declaration that the applicants are liable to pay the rent for the quarters/flats occupied by them only at the rate fixed vide Annexure.A1.

(iii) issue a declaration that Annexure.A4 Circular is void and nonest in the eye of law.

3. In the O.A. specific contentions were taken by the applicants to the effect that Annexure.A4 Circular could not have superceded Annexure.A1 Government Order; more so in the light of the ruling rendered by the Supreme Court in Prabhash Chand Jain v. State of Haryana and others AIR 1996 (8) SCC 105. In 'Ground D', it was contended that Annexure.A10 Government Order dated 25.11.1998 which was adverted to in Annexure.A4 Circular by the State Government was not applicable to the applicants, as it was only to gov