Court upholds recovery from petitioner's leave encashment, dismissing challenge on house rent allowance issue.

The court upheld the recovery of an amount from the petitioner's leave encashment, dismissing the petition challenging the deduction. The dispute arose from both spouses receiving house rent allowance while residing together, contrary to Government Orders allowing only one spouse to claim the allowance in such cases. The court found the recovery justified, emphasizing the petitioner's wife's employment with a Central Government enterprise and the applicability of relevant Government Orders. The court rejected claims of lack of opportunity to respond, concluding that the recovery was valid based on the Orders and factual situation.

---

---

Issues:
Quashing of order deducting amount from leave encashment
Validity of communication for recovery of amount
Interpretation of Government Orders regarding house rent allowance

Analysis:

The petition sought to quash an order deducting an amount from the petitioner's leave encashment and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal against it. The petitioner, a retired Commercial Tax Officer, received house rent allowance since April 1975, while his wife, an Oriental Bank of Commerce employee since February 1986, also received the allowance. A complaint in December 2012 led to a notice to the petitioner in December 2012, seeking clarification on his wife's employment and allowance. The Deputy Commissioner sought action based on a Government Order from May 2013, resulting in a recovery notice of Rs.1,97,365 from the petitioner's leave encashment in April 2014, upheld in the appeal's rejection in October 2015.

The key contention was whether the recovery was justified due to both spouses receiving house rent allowance while residing together. The Government Orders from 1984 and 2000 stipulated that if both spouses in government service lived together, only one could claim the allowance. The petitioner's wife's employment with a Central Government enterprise meant these conditions applied, as affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner's reliance on a 2015 communication was deemed irrelevant, as it pertained to government servants, not applicable to the petitioner's case.

The court rejected the argument that the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to respond, noting the notice and the petitioner's acknowledgment of his wife's allowance. The court found no prejudice to the petitioner since his wife received the allowance until his retirement. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the recovery of the amount from the petitioner's leave encashment based on the Government Orders and factual circumstances.

---