****

AMARJOT BHATTI, J.

1. The appellants/defendants have filed present Regular Second Appeal against impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide which the appeal preferred by appellants/defendants was dismissed with costs and judgment and decree dated 28.05.2001 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, partly decreed in favour of respondent/plaintiff, was upheld.

2. Facts of the case are that plaintiff (respondent in this case) filed suit for declaration to the effect that order passed by the defendants (appellants in this case) for recovery of House Rent Allowance already paid by the defendants to plaintiff for the period w.e.f. September, 1997 to April, 1998 @25% of basic pay from her monthly salary during her service tenure on deputation with Punjab Urban Development Authority (‘PUDA’), Patiala, is illegal, null and void, ultra vires without jurisdiction, arbitrary and is against the principles of natural justice, further, reducing the House Rent Allowance of the plaintiff from 25% per month of the basic pay to 7.5% w.e.f. 01.04.1998 is also illegal, null and void, or in the alternative, plaintiff is entitled to the House Rent Allowance @15% per month, which was being paid to the employees of parent department of the plaintiff i.e. Director of Public Instruction(S) Punjab, Chandigarh and she is further entitled to the refund of House Rent Allowance already deducted by the defendants along with interest and relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from effecting the said recovery from her salary.

3. Plaintiff (respondent in this case) Smt. Madhu Sharma joined the services in the department of D.P.I.(S) Punjab, Chandigarh in the year 1980 and she continuously worked till 21.04.1993. On 21.04.1993, she was transferred to Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) at Patiala i.e. the office of defendants (appellants in this case). At the time of joining, it was agreed that terms and conditions of PUDA would be applicable for all purposes including House Rent Allowance as admissible to the employees of PUDA along with Deputation Allowance. Initially i.e. on 21.04.1993, there was fixed House Rent Allowance payable to all the employees of Punjab Government and the employees of PUDA. In the year 1996, PUDA framed House Rent Allowance Regulations i.e. Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority Employees (House Rent Allowance) Regulations, 1996. As per Clause No. 3 of the said Regulations, plaintiff was entitled to receive House Rent Allowance as was being paid to the employees of PUDA. She was paid House Rent Allowance @25% of the basic pay from the period September, 1997 to April, 1998. On 10.09.1998, Punjab Government Education Department extended the deputation period for one year with the condition that she was not entitled to Deputation Allowance or any other allowance which is not admissible to the employees of parent department of the plaintiff. Although there was no specific reference regarding non-payment of House Rent Allowance, the defendants stopped making payment of House Rent Allowance @25% of basic pay and started making payment of House Rent Allowance @7.5%, which was neither being paid to the employees of PUDA nor to the parent department of the plaintiff. The said action of the defendants reducing House Rent Allowance of the plaintiff was challenged as illegal, null and void and against the principles of natural justice. It was pointed out that once PUDA allowed the benefit of House Rent Allowance Regulations, 1996 to the employees of PUDA, thereafter, the department was estopped to reduce the same. The order is discriminatory in nature, as other employees on deputation were still given House Rent Allowance @25% of the basic pay. Before passing adverse order, no notice was served upon the plaintiff. The action of defendants is abuse and misuse of the powers conferred upon the defendants. It was further me