The Government Order continues to have effect until altered, repealed, or amended, and the control of the State Bank of India by the Central Government influenced the court's decision.

K.M. Joseph, J.

Petitioner challenges Annexure 1 order dated 24.4.2014 passed by the 5th respondent i.e. Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal. He also challenges the order dated 17.03.2011 passed by the second respondent, namely, the General Manager, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limited. He further seeks a direction commanding the respondents to pay HRA with arrears of HRA with 12 per cent bank interest since it was illegally stopped in December, 2009.

2. The brief facts necessary to appreciate the contentions are as follows:

Petitioner joined the second respondent on 07.07.1984. He was being paid HRA from 1984 till 2009. From the year 2009, HRA was stopped. It appears that an application was moved by the petitioner that was rejected by the order, which is impugned before the Tribunal and also before this Court, namely, the order dated 17.03.2011. He approached the Tribunal challenging the said order and seeking relief’s in regard to stoppage of HRA. The claim petition has been rejected.

3. We heard Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manvendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for KMVN and Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the State Bank of India.

4. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was enjoying the benefit of HRA till 2009 when it was suddenly stopped. HRA has been stopped without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the principle of natural justice has been violated. It was stopped on the ground that the wife of the petitioner is also drawing HRA as an employee of the State Bank of India. He would next contend that actually the building was allotted on rent, initially, to the mother of the petitioner and on the death of the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner has become the tenant and he has the responsibility to pay the rent. This fact is highlighted before us in order to contend that the Government Order dated 16.01.1985, which is the basis for stopping the HRA and apparently relied in the impugned order also, contemplates that when husband and wife are claiming HRA, then HRA may be claimed by the person, who has the liability to pay the rent. In order to deal with this contention, we deem it appropriate to extract the English translation of the Government Order dated 16.01.1985 made available to us by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit. The same reads as under:

“No. 641-(1) Chawalis-1/84

From,

Shri Surendra Mohan,

Secretary,

Government of Uttar Pradesh.

To,

All the public enterprises of the State and President/Management Director, Noida.

Subject: Clarification regarding permissibility of house rent allowance to both the employed husband and wife living in the same house.

Public Enterprise Section-Lucknow:

Date: 16 Jan. 1985

Sir,

Concerning above subject I have been directed to state to you that under the conditions mentioned in the Notification No. 1/44-1-No.-223/44-1/Upakram Vetan Report 26-83, dated 12 May, 1983 all the officers/employees working in public enterprises/corporations of the state are eligible for house rent allowance. In this concern it has been decided that where husband and wife are living on rent in the same house and being in service the house rent allowance is permissible to both, in that situation the hose rent allowance is permissible to only one of the two and the same is to be given according to the salary of the one on whose name the houses taken on rent or who is responsible for paying tax on his private house/house under ownership of some member of family/house under ownership of Hindu undivided family. If any one of the husband and wife is given the government house on rent or free, the other one will not be eligible for house rent allowance while living in the same house. If any of the husband and wife is employed under the state government and the other is employed in any public enter