( 1. ) SUSTAINABILITY of the order dated 4-5-1999 passed by the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (for short the Tribunal) in O. A. No. 1590/98 has been called in question by the petitioner invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 2. ) THE facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner is a State Government employee. He came on transfer to Jabalpur in the month of July, 1993. He was not allotted a Government accommodation and, therefore, he was paid house rent allowance admissible as per rules. The wife of the petitioner is an employee of the Central Government and she is obtaining the house rent allowance admissible as per rules applicable to her. The Principal, Government Ayurved College and Hospital, Jabalpur, the respondent No. 3 herein, by letter dated 27-5-1998 required the petitioner to submit details of his family members which was submitted on 1-7-1998. As the same was not accepted the petitioner sent it by registered post. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 directed the petitioner to submit whether his wife is a Government servant and is in receipt of house rent allowance and from what date. The petitioner stated the facts in a categorical manner asseverating that his wife is a Central Government employee and getting her house rent allowance as admissible in the rules. The petitioner putforth a stand before the authority that his getting of the house rent allowance by his wife has no connection or nexus with the petitioner. Certain circulars were pressed into service. Despite the aforesaid fact situation the respondent No. 3 stopped paying the house rent allowance to the petitioner and threatened him to take coercive action for recovery of a sum amounting to Rs. 15,940/- and thereafter withheld the salary of the petitioner. Being dissatisfied the petitioner filed O. A. No. 1590/98 before the Tribunal. It was contended before the Tribunal that circulars of the State Government do not cover the field and, therefore, by making the said circulars applicable, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the house rent allowance. It is noteworthy to state before the Tribunal reliance was placed on the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 56/99. The Tribunal distinguished the same and rejected the application preferred by the petitioner. Hence this writ petition at the instance of the petitioner.

( 3. ) A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with inasmuch as the facts which were before the Apex Court were relatable to the circular dated 15-6-1987, but the case of the petitioner is governed by the circular dated 18-10-1994 which adds a clarificatory note to the previous circulars.

( 4. ) WE have heard Mr. R. D. Hundikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State. It is urged by Mr. Hundikar that the Apex Court had interpreted the circular dated 15-6-1987 and the same being the law of the land pronounced under Article 141 of the Constitution, the Tribunal could not have distinguished the same. It is urged by him the letter dated 18-10-1994 which adds the clarificatory note to the circular dated 15-6-1987 does not take away the effect and impact of the Apex Courts decision and the same still governs the field and, therefore, the Tribunal has fallen into enormous error by distinguishing the same.

( 5. ) SOUNDING a contra note, it is proponed by Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the State that before the Apex Court the grievance of the appellant was not relatable to the fact situation which was in existence before the circular vide Annexure P-3 was issued and that apart, Their Lordships took note of the fact that the husband and wife were staying separately. The learned Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the Tribunal putting forth that the language employe