JUDGMENT : T.R. Ravi, J. The writ petition has been filed with the following main prayers. (i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing Ext. P10 communication dated 24.03.2017 to the extent it denies the HRA as per Ext P1, XI th Pay Commission Order and Ext P11 communication by the 2 nd respondent dated 24.03.2025; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2 nd and 3 rd respondents to disburse the HRA @ 10% to the 1 st petitioner from 07.09.2023, 2 nd petitioner from 11.10.2021, 3 rd petitioner from 01.02.2023, 4 th petitioner from 05.11.2021, 5 th petitioner from 12.01.2024, 6 th petitioner from 25.08.2023 and 7 th petitioner from 19.08.2023 onwards with 9% interest on the difference of 6% of HRA from the respective days till disbursement; and (iii) declare that the petitioners are entitled for HRA at the rate of 10% applicable to the employees working in the institution within 1 km limits from the Corporation as provided under Note (1) to Clause 12 of Ext. P1 pay revision order. 2. The petitioners are presently working under the Kerala State Medical Council at Thiruvananthapuram, in different posts, on deputation from other Departments like Veterinary University, Health Department, LSG Department, Statistical Department and Agricultural University. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not being paid House Rent Allowance ('HRA' for short) at the rate of 10%. The petitioners submit that Kerala State Medical Council is situated within one kilometer limit from the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. It is submitted that the recommendations of the 11 th Pay Revision Commission was implemented by the first respondent vide Exhibit P1 and as per Clause 12 of Exhibit P1, the HRA is to be paid based on the percentage of basic pay applicable to the four classes of employees. Note 1 to Clause 12 reads as follows. “Note (1).An employee working within one kilometre from Corporation limits and was drawing HRA at Corporation rates will be assured 10% hike in the existing amount of HRA or the new rate applicable to their places whichever is higher.” 3. Note 1 to Clause 12 reads as follows. “Note (1).An employee working within one kilometre from Corporation limits and was drawing HRA at Corporation rates will be assured 10% hike in the existing amount of HRA or the new rate applicable to their places whichever is higher.” 3. The petitioners submit that Exhibit P1 has been effective from 01.07.2019 and the petitioners are persons who were deputed subsequently on different dates between 2021 and 2024 and hence entitled to 10% of the pay as HRA. The petitioners have produced salary slips which would show that they are paid only 4% of the basic pay as HRA instead of 10%. The petitioners claim that one Manu who is being given 10% as HRA by the 3 rd respondent is a person who has been deputed from the LSG Department and is similarly situated to the petitioners. The petitioners also claim that employees working in the Kerala Legislative Assembly on deputation are being paid 10% of the pay as HRA. Similar instances of payment of 10% has been pointed out. Exhibit P9 Government Order dated 17.08.2004 is one in which the first respondent has clarified that appointees on deputation are entitled to the same Grade Pay which they were receiving in the parent organization. Exhibit P10 dated 24.03.2017 is another letter issued by the first respondent, which says that HRA is admissible as per the rates applicable to the place where the foreign service is located. It is submitted that though Exhibit P10 has been issued following Exhibit P9 order, it was issued on a totally different context and the same principle cannot be followed for granting of HRA. It is submitted that the request submitted by the fifth petitioner before the second respondent was rejected relying on Exhibit P10 which is not warranted. Exhibit P11 is the order whereby the request was rejected. The petitioners have produced as Exhibit P12, the judgment dated 19.01.2024 in WPC No.391 of 2023, filed by the teachers and non-teaching staff working in M. A. M. UP School, Parambilkadavu, which is situated within 1 kilometre from the Corporation limit of Kozhikode, challenging the denial of 10% HRA. The said claim was accepted by this Court. It is hence submitted that there is no reason to deny the benefit to the petitioners. Exhibits P13 to P16 also orders to the same effect. The said claim was accepted by this Court. It is hence submitted that there is no reason to deny the benefit to the petitioners. Exhibits P13 to P16 also orders to the same effect. Petitioners rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.S.E.B. Patiala & Anr. v. Sudarshan Parshad & Ors. [ (2006) 9 SCC 152 ] and the judgment of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Uma Sankar Singh v. State of UP [(2016) SCC OnLine All. 2787] in support of their contentions. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is stated that as per Rule 144 of Part I KSR, the amount of pay and joining time and pay during such joining time admissible to an officer sent on deputation to foreign service is to be fixed by the Government sanctioning the transfer in consultation with the foreign employer. It is stated that the Government has the power to determine the officer's entitlement to pay and allowances admissible while on foreign service and that the consistent stand followed by the Government in such cases is to allow the officer to draw the grade pay and allowances which he would have drawn, had he continued in his parent department but for the transfer to foreign service. It is hence submitted that such persons are entitled to HRA at the rate at which it was drawn immediately before the transfer to the foreign service. It is also submitted that when sanction is granted for deputation, the order shall specifically state the pay which the deputationist shall receive in the foreign service and he will not be entitled to receive any remuneration more than what has been specified. It is also submitted that if the order is silent regarding any particular remuneration or concession, it has to be presumed that the intention is that it shall not be enjoyed. Reliance is also placed on Rule 140 of Part I KSR to submit that an officer is transferred to foreign service according to his will and the employer at the foreign service cannot be expected to bear the extra burden for accommodating such a deputationist. 5. Reliance is also placed on Rule 140 of Part I KSR to submit that an officer is transferred to foreign service according to his will and the employer at the foreign service cannot be expected to bear the extra burden for accommodating such a deputationist. 5. Heard Sri R.K. Muraleedharan for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for the 1 st respondent - State and Sri N. Raghuraj, Senior Advocate, instructed by Sri Vivek Menon, for respondents 2 and 3. 6. The Kerala Service Rules do not contain any specific provision regarding payment of HRA. The payment of HRA is governed by the pay revision orders issued from time to time. The contention of the respondents is that Rules 140 and 144 of Part I KSR do not permit payment of HRA as claimed by the petitioners, do not appear to be correct. The contention raised is that under Rule 140 , the deputation is only at the will of the employee and hence the foreign employer cannot be burdened with payment of a higher amount as HRA. Rule 140 does not lead to any such inference. Rule 140 (a) says that no officer may be transferred to foreign service against his will. The above sentence does not mean that the employee has a right to choose a foreign service. In K. Ravindran Nair v. State of Kerala [2001 SCC OnLine Ker. 670] , this Court held that in a case of deputation to a body which is substantially owned and controlled by the Government, the employee has no right to insist that he shall not be transferred against his will. In Radhakrishna Pillai v. Director of Civil Supplies [ 2005 (1) KLT SN 85 Page 66] this Court held that it is well settled principle that the whole time of an officer appointed in Government service is at the disposal of the Government and he may be employed in any manner required by an administrative authority exercising power. As such, the liability to go on deputation is inherent as far as an officer is concerned. The reliance next placed is on Rule 144 to submit that the amount of pay is to be fixed by the authority sanctioning the transfer in consultation with the foreign employment and that the pay which the employee shall receive in the foreign service should be specifically stated in the order sanctioning the transfer. The reliance next placed is on Rule 144 to submit that the amount of pay is to be fixed by the authority sanctioning the transfer in consultation with the foreign employment and that the pay which the employee shall receive in the foreign service should be specifically stated in the order sanctioning the transfer. Note 1 to Rule 144 says that if it is intended that the employee shall receive any remuneration, or enjoy any concession of pecuniary value, in addition to his pay proper, the exact nature of such remuneration or concession must be specified in the order. Rule 144 does not speak about the HRA payable to an employee. It speaks about the pay. 'Pay' is defined under Rule 12(23) to mean “the amount drawn monthly by an officer” as the pay, other than Special Pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reason of his position in the cadre and personal pay and special pay and any other amounts which may be specially classed as paid by the Government. The definition does not include payment of allowances. Hence, a contention that HRA is included in Rule 144 cannot be countenanced. Exhibit P1 is a Government Order which revises the pay and allowances and allied matters of State Government employees and teachers based on recommendations of the 11 th Pay Revision Commission. As per Exhibit P1, it was decided to pay HRA as the percentage of the basic pay and the total area of the State was divided into 4 classes for the said purpose. The rates of HRA applicable to each class has also been determined in Exhibit P1. In note (1) attached to Clause 12 of Exhibit P1, it is stated that an employee working within 1 KM from Corporation limits and was drawing HRA at Corporation rates will be assured 10% hike in the existing amount of HRA or the new rate applicable in their places whichever is higher. The contention of the petitioners is that the Kerala State Medical Council is situated within 1KM of Corporation limits. The contention of the petitioners is that the Kerala State Medical Council is situated within 1KM of Corporation limits. The petitioners further contends that even the note need not be looked into since to a query whether the office building of Kerala State Medical Council is located within 1KM of Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation Limit, an answer has been received stating that it is located within 1KM of Thiruvananthapuram City Corporation Limit. It is hence submitted that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of Exhibit P1. The application of Exhibit P1 to employees like the petitioners is not disputed. The counsel for the petitioners relied on Exhibit P12 judgment in WPC No.391 of 2023, which was rendered in the case of teaching and non-teaching staff of MAMUP School, Parambilakadavu. This Court held that the HRA depends on where the place of work is and the distance from the notified Corporation limits. The Court held that if the workplace is either within the Corporation's limits or beyond the Corporation's limits, but within the limits of 1 KM from the Corporation's limits, HRA would be paid at the rate that would be admissible in the Corporation area. The claim in this petition is also similar. I do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken in Exhibit P12 judgment. In the case on hand, the benefit was sought to be denied based on Exhibits P10 and P11 communications, which say that persons in foreign service should be allowed HRA based on what was being drawn in the parent department and without reference to the place where the workplace is situated. Exhibits P10 and P11 cannot be sustained in view of Exhibit P12 judgment. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court in Sunil John Mathew v. Lency K.L. [2019 KHC 3534] held that a circular issued by the General Education Department cannot interpret the order issued by the Government involving its executive officer and can at best be considered as an understanding of the officer in the General Education Department. 7. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Exhibits P10 and P11 communications to the extent they deny payment of HRA as per Exhibit P1 11 th Pay Commission Order to the petitioners are quashed. 7. In the above circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. Exhibits P10 and P11 communications to the extent they deny payment of HRA as per Exhibit P1 11 th Pay Commission Order to the petitioners are quashed. The respondents 2 and 3 are directed to disburse HRA at the rate of 10% to the 1 st petitioner from 07.09.2023, the 2 nd petitioner from 11.10.2021, the 3 rd petitioner from 01.02.2023, the 4 th petitioner from 05.11.2021, 6 th petitioner from 25.08.2023 and the 7 th petitioner from 19.08.2023, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The question regarding payment of interest is left open to be considered in appropriate proceedings.