B.Shyam vs. The State Of Telangana And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, B. Shyam, a Slate Tax Officer (GST), filed a writ petition challenging the respondents' action of not paying him House Rent Allowance (HRA) at 30% and City Compensatory Allowance (CCA) at Rs. 1000 per month. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to these benefits as per G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 18.03.2015, and that he was discharging his duties at the 4th respondent's office in Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad. However, his HRA and CCA, along with his monthly salary, were being paid based on his posting at the Bodhan office, which he argued was discriminatory. The petitioner had submitted a representation on 18.09.2021, but no orders were passed by the respondents.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 18.09.2021. The respondents were instructed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law within a reasonable period, preferably within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court did not make a specific finding on the petitioner's entitlement to HRA and CCA as per G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 18.03.2015, or the retrospective effect, as the matter was remitted for consideration. The ratio decidendi is that administrative authorities must consider pending representations within a reasonable timeframe and pass orders in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to HRA at 30% and CCA at Rs. 1000/- per month with retrospective effect from 20.09.2018, as per G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 18.03.2015, despite his salary and allowances being processed based on his posting at the Bodhan office, while he performs duties at the Saroornagar Division, Hyderabad office? (Question of law and fact, turning on G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 18.03.2015). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that the respondents' action of not paying HRA at 30% and CCA at Rs. 1000/- per month, as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 18.03.2015, was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory. He further contended that his representation dated 18.09.2021, seeking these benefits, had not been considered by the respondents. Respondents' contentions: The Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner's representation was pending, the respondents would consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.