House rent allowance recovery upheld where one spouse already drew the allowance and notice before recovery was given.

Where governing instructions restricted house rent allowance to one spouse when husband and wife resided in the same accommodation, recovery of excess allowance from retiral dues was upheld because both spouses drew the allowance for the same period and the spouse was employed in a public sector bank. The later communication relied on by the employee did not assist him, as it concerned government servants and preserved earlier cases. The challenge on denial of opportunity also failed because notice had been issued, a reply was submitted, and no prejudice was shown. The writ petition was dismissed and the impugned recovery and appellate order were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether recovery of house rent allowance from the petitioner's retiral dues was valid where the petitioner and his spouse were residing in the same accommodation and the spouse was employed in a public sector bank, and whether the recovery was vitiated for want of opportunity.

Analysis: The relevant Government Orders provided that where husband and wife were covered by the governing conditions and resided in the same accommodation, house rent allowance could be claimed only by one of them, and the same condition extended to employment in public enterprises and similar bodies. The wife of the petitioner was employed in the Oriental Bank of Commerce and was receiving house rent allowance, while the petitioner also drew the allowance for the same period. The later communication relied upon by the petitioner did not assist him, as it concerned government servants and expressly preserved earlier cases. The petitioner was also issued notice and submitted a reply before the recovery order was passed, and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The recovery from the petitioner's leave encashment was valid and the challenge based on denial of opportunity failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed as the impugned recovery and appellate order were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where governing instructions restrict house rent allowance to one spouse residing in the same accommodation and the affected employee is given notice and an opportunity to reply, recovery of excess allowance from retiral dues is not invalid merely because the spouse works in a public sector enterprise.

---