3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, since the petitioner was not in actual occupation of the Government Quarters, which is unfit for dwelling purpose, the respondents ought to have granted the house rent allowance to the petitioner. But contrary to the rule, the respondents have not taken steps either to reconstruct the Government Quarters or to grant house rent allowances. However, the Deputy Director of Animal Husbandry, District Livestock Farm, Pudukkottai, the second respondent herein, by proceedings dated 12.01.2009, categorically recommended the case of the petitioner to the first respondent herein stating that the quarters were constructed 50 years back and for the past 25 years, it was not maintained properly and the same are unfit for dwelling purpose. In spite of the recommendations, the petitioner's house rent allowance has been recovered without any valid reason. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No.5022 of 2009 before this Court. By order dated 19.06.2009, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the first respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 29.10.2008 based on the recommendation of the second respondent dated 12.01.2009 within a period of six weeks. Without considering the same, the first respondent has issued the impugned order dated 15.09.2009.
