JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - The Petitioner sued for recovery of a sum of Rs. 865/- towards travelling allowance accrued to him and interest thereon of a sum of Rs. 503.94 up to the date of institution of the suit His suit was decreed in the trial Court, but has been dismissed by the learned District Judge in appeal. This second appeal is directed against the reversing decree. 2. The Petitioner joined service under the State of Orissa as an Engineering Overseer in 1951 and was attached to the establishment of the Collector of Puri. He continued in service in the Collectorate up to 1957, when he was placed under suspension in a disciplinary proceeding. According to the Petitioner during service as Overseer and in discharge of his duties, he undertook certain tours and submitted his bills for travelling allowance to the Collector (Defendant No. 2). The Petitioner alleged that his travelling allowance bills were never attended to and, therefore, he was obliged to enter into a series of correspondence with Defendants 1, 2 and 3 between 1956 and 1965. 'When he became satisfied that in spite of long waiting, the claims would not be settled, he issued notice under : Section 80 of the CPC and instituted the suit on 31-1-1969. 3. The Defendant entered contest by filing a joint written statement. It was denied that the Petitioner had submitted any travelling allowance bills for the disputed period. The Petitioner had been called upon on several occasions to submit his travelling allowance bills with the necessary particulars so that they could be checked and the dues of the Petitioner paid. In spite of several remainders, the Petitioner never took action as required under the law to entitle himself of travelling allowance. The Petitioner has not been paid such travelling allowance as may be due to him on account of his failure to comply with the requirements of law. The claim in litigation was also said to have been barred by limitation. 4. The learned trial Judge came to hold that the Petitioner had performed tours in discharge of his duties and was entitled to travelling allowance. He further found that the Petitioner had submitted tour diaries and travelling allowance bill and the Collector omitted to pay the same in spite of several requests. He held that the claim was not barred by limitation and decreed the suit. 5. He further found that the Petitioner had submitted tour diaries and travelling allowance bill and the Collector omitted to pay the same in spite of several requests. He held that the claim was not barred by limitation and decreed the suit. 5. On appeal by the Defendants, the learned Appellate Judge came to hold that the Petitioner had undertaken tours as claimed by him in discharge of his duties attached to his office. But he had failed to submit bills for such travelling as required under the Travelling Allowance Rules. He had been called upon by the Collector and the Sub-Divisional Officer on several occasions and yet he omitted to comply with the instructions. The learned Appellate Judge also came to hold that it was very possible that the Petitioner had not at all submitted any travelling allowance bills for the relevant period. He held that the claim in suit has become barred by limitation by 1-7-1959 and the suit instituted on 31-1-1966 was, therefore not tenable. With these findings he reversed the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the Petitioner's action. 6. That the Petitioner performed certain tours in discharge of his official duties does not Seem to be in dispute at all. Under the Travelling Allowance Rules, the Petitioner was required to submit appropriate hills with adequate particulars of travelling. In reply to the representations of the Petitioner, the Defendants had at different stages called upon the Petitioner to submit bills in accordance with Rules in order to entitle himself to draw the travelling allowance. On 18th of February, 1963 (Ext. 5) the Petitioner had been called upon to furnish the dates on which he had submitted the bills to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar. Under Ext. 8 dated 19-3-1963, the Petitioner was again called upon to produce fresh travelling allowance bills relating to October. 1955 and December, 1955 to June, 1956, as there was no paper in the office to show that he had submitted the bills to the Sub-Divisional Officer of Sadar, Puri under whom he was serving. Letters dated 24-4-1963 (Ext. 10), 24-5-1963 (Ext; 12), 28-8-1963 (Ext. 14), 4-10-1963 (Ext. 17), 17-10-1963 (Ext. 19), 4th November, 1963 (Ext: 21), 25th. February, 1964 (Ext. 22) and 12-1-1965 (Ext. 26) support the defence stand that travelling allowance bills had not been furnished by the Petitioner. Letters dated 24-4-1963 (Ext. 10), 24-5-1963 (Ext; 12), 28-8-1963 (Ext. 14), 4-10-1963 (Ext. 17), 17-10-1963 (Ext. 19), 4th November, 1963 (Ext: 21), 25th. February, 1964 (Ext. 22) and 12-1-1965 (Ext. 26) support the defence stand that travelling allowance bills had not been furnished by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had replied to each of these letters, but had scrupulously admitted to submit fresh travelling allowances bills and also did not produced evidence to show that he had submitted the bills earlier. I am surprised to find the care and attention devoted by public officers in this case to respond to the Petitioner's complaints so promptly. On each occasion Petitioner also kept on corresponding at regular intervals, but failed to establish by evidence that he had submitted travelling allowances bills at any point of time. The learned District Judge had no justification to have a halting finding that perhaps the Petitioner had not submitted his travelling allowances bills. When the Defendants had been denying their receipt from the very begining and long before the litigation, it was for the Petitioner to show that the bills have been duly submitted and the Petitioner has certainly failed to establish such a fact by evidence Common practice, however seems to be that receipt are not maintained of submission of travelling allowances bills. It is equally true that the travelling allowence bills are usually not lost. The Petitioner has to submit his travelling allowances bills to the Subdivisonal Officer, Sader, Puri. Instead of doing that he alleges to have submitted his bills to the Collector. It was for him to have followed up the matter and in case of the travelling allowances bills had actually been submitted and were not forthcoming, it was his duty to submit a duplicate set thereof. As the leaned District Judge has rightly found, the Petitioner has failed to do so. Without the requisite travelling allowance bills no payment could certainly be made. For the unfortunate situation the Petitioner is squarely to blame. 7. The learned District Judge has found that the Petitioner's claim is barred by limitation. Plaintiff's dues are for a period ending June, 1956. The suit has been field in 1966 about 10 years after the period for which travelling allowances is claimed. The Petitioner relies upon a letter (Ext 7) to over come the hurdle of limitation. 7. The learned District Judge has found that the Petitioner's claim is barred by limitation. Plaintiff's dues are for a period ending June, 1956. The suit has been field in 1966 about 10 years after the period for which travelling allowances is claimed. The Petitioner relies upon a letter (Ext 7) to over come the hurdle of limitation. That letter from the assistant secretary to Government in the Planning and & Co-ordination Department. "With reference to his representation dated 11-2-1963, the undersigned is directed to inform him that steps are being taken to settle his arrears quickly." cording to Mr. Ramdas for the Petitioner, u/s 25(3) of the Contract Act, this communication would save limitation and the suit having been filed within three years from the date of this letter, the action is in time Section 25(3) of the Contract Act provides: 25. An agreement made without consideration is void, unless: xx xx xx (3) it is a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generallyor specially authorised in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. In any of these cases, such an agreement is a contract. Explanation.... The dues of the Petitioner were not an ascertained amount and I do not think the contention of Mr. Ramdas that the Petitioner is entitled to avail of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act in the facts of this case is justified. Mr. Ramdas to support his claim relied upon a Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported in Appa Rao v. Suryaprakasa Rao ILR 23 Mad, 94, where it was held that a document sufficiently complies with Section 25 of the Contract Act when it is signed by the person to be charged and refers to the debt in such a way as to identify it and contains a promise to pay wholly or in part the debt referred to therein or expresses an intention to pay which can be construed to be a 'promise', To create a 'promise' within the meaning of the section it is not necessary that there should be an accepted proposal reduced to writing, a written proposal, accepted before action, becoming by the definition clause, a promise when accepted. He also relies on a Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Bahadur Singh v. Damodar Prasad Singh 6 Pat Law Journal 121. The facts of the Patna case are quite different and need not be discussed. Reference was also made to a decision of this Court in case of Rao Sons v. Bijayalaxmi Das 35 (1969) C.L.T. 678, where it was said that a barred debt is a valid consideration for a promise to pay u/s 25(3) of the Contract Act even if the promissory did not know it to be barred on the date of the promise. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate relies upon a decision of this Court in the case of Balasore Textile Distributors Association Vs. Indian Union (B.N. Rly.) and Another, and two decisions of the Patna High Court in Sheobachan v. Madho Saran AIR 1952 Pat. 75 and Baidyanath Mandal and Others Vs. The Coal Purchase and Inspection Agency (P.) Ltd. in Liquidation. It is not disputed that the dues of the Petitioner were not known and only when the Petitioner submitted travelling allowance bills with adequate particulars, the claim had to be scrutinised. The letter under Ext. 7 might have evinced an intention to pay, because at no point of time the Defendants intended to withheld the legitimate dues of the Petitioner. But more intention to pay an unascertained amount would not come within the fold of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. I am in agreement with the learned Appellate Judge that the claim is barred by limitations. 8. Even though the Petitioner is losing in law. I hope, if the Petitioner is in a position to furnish adequate particulars of his travelling (since at no point of time it has been disputed that the Petitioner has travelled as alleged), Government would not refuse to pay his dues. As has been on more than one occasion indicated by the Supreme Court, the State never comes forward with a plea of limitation against its employee when the dues are legitimate. I dismiss this appeal, but direct parties to bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed