Legal appeal concerns a dispute over the recovery of House Rent Allowance (HRA) from an appellant, a former Inspector (Telecom) in the Jammu and Kashmir Police, who allegedly drew HRA without entitlement. The appellant's father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, had been allotted government accommodation due to being a displaced Kashmiri pandit. The appellant occasionally shared this accommodation. The recovery notice was challenged in court but was upheld both in the initial writ petition and subsequent appeal. The appellant argued that Rule 6(h)(iv) of The Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (House Rent Allowance and City Compensation Allowance) Rules, 1992, was not properly considered, which states that if multiple family members are government employees sharing accommodation, only one can claim HRA. However, the court upheld the recovery notice, stating that the appellant, as a government employee, was not entitled to claim HRA while sharing accommodation allotted to his retired father, as per Rule 6(h)(i) and 6(h)(ii). The appeal was dismissed.

1. Background: The appellant, a former Inspector(Telecom), faced a recovery notice for allegedly drawing HRA without entitlement.
2. Legal Proceedings: The appellant challenged the recovery notice in court, but both the writ petition and subsequent appeal were unsuccessful.
3. Appellant's Argument: The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant occasionally shared accommodation allotted to his father, a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, and thus was entitled to HRA under Rule 6(h)(iv).
4. State's Argument: The state's counsel opposed the appellant's claim, asserting that the appellant, as a government employee, was not entitled to HRA while sharing accommodation allotted to his father, as per Rule 6(h)(i) and 6(h)(ii).
5. Court's Decision: The court upheld the recovery notice, emphasizing that Rule 6(h)(i) and 6(h)(ii) applied to the situation, barring the appellant from claiming HRA while sharing accommodation with his retired father.
6. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.