In the case of Manas Vatsa v. State of UP, a judicial officer filed a writ petition to order the State to pay the difference between the actual rent he paid and the House Rent Allowance he received during his stay in rented housing, as well as any penal interest the court may determine, in the amount of Rs. 2,88,680.
The Judicial Officer said that this Court had already made a decision in Divakar Dwivedi about the problem of rent arrears if he was not given government housing. The Court noted that resorting to court procedures in such cases for a redress of their grievance, in particular, rent arrears is not in the interest of justice and the principle of separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive.
Analysis of Court order
The decision in Divakar Dwivedi versus State of U.P. required all such judicial officers who had rented private housing to do so because there was no availability of government housing. The Division Bench of Justice Suneet Kumar and Rajendra Kumar of the Allahabad High Court ordered that they must file their claims for rent and interest through their respective District Judges.
Further, Upon receiving such a representation, the District Judges are required to investigate the claim, ascertain its validity, and then submit it to the High Court’s Registrar General with a notation that the claim of the Judicial Officer is covered by the ruling in Divakar Dwivedi. The Registrar General will then bring up the matter with the Principal Secretary of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that the payment is made within a reasonable amount of time. The Court ruled that the Judicial Officers must present their claim as instructed above rather than pursuing legal action to recover unpaid rent and interest based on the Divakar Dwivedi case.