Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 357 (JK)

Piarey Lal Kandru (Dr. ) v. State

2002-11-16

R.C.GANDHI

body2002
R.C. Gandhi, J. 1. Petitioner by means of this petition seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the salary from October 2000 to February 2001, medical claims and T.A. Bill which have been paid by the respondents. 2. It is submitted at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner while working as Assistant District Medical Officer, Budgam under forced circumstances and with the permission of respondents joined in the Directorate at Jammu in October 2000, where he remained attached till February 2001 and superannuated from service in July 2001. The petitioner was entitled to the salary for the period October 2000 to February 2001 which has been withheld by the respondents without assigning any reason. Similarly medical claims of petitioner, though presented to the treasury, have not been encashed for payment to the petitioner and so is the fate of TA Bill. 3. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that the salary for the period October 2000 to February 2001 could not be paid to the petitioner for the reason that the amount of salary was to be made available from the District Fund of Budgam and since it could not be transferred the petitioner only for that reason could not be paid the salary. The petitioner otherwise is entitled to this leave salary. With regard to the medical claim, it is stated that the same was presented before the Treasury Officer, Mrs. Shekhar learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that the bills were not supported by vouchers. The vouchers were retained inadvertantly by the Directorate while according sanction to the medical claims which were required to be returned alongwith the medical claims to the drawing and disbursing officer for presentation before the treasury. So far as the claim of T.A. Bill of the petitioner is concerned, those are still pending with the respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. In addition to the above, Mr. Goja, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the leave encashment salary as retiral benefit though has been paid to the petitioner yet payment made by the respondents is less for 27 days. The submission of Mr. Goja is that the respondents be directed to make the payment of leave encashment salary of 27 days also. Goja, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the leave encashment salary as retiral benefit though has been paid to the petitioner yet payment made by the respondents is less for 27 days. The submission of Mr. Goja is that the respondents be directed to make the payment of leave encashment salary of 27 days also. The petitioner has not made out in the pleadings that the leave salary to the extent of 27 days has not been paid to the petitioner. This claim of petitioner is not rejected at this stage, he is at liberty to seek redressal by raising a demand before the respondents 5. So for as the payment of medical claim is concerned, the respondents on 15.11.2002 have submitted that the bill is with the Assistant District Medical Officer, Budgam but the vouchers are with the Directorate. The officer was present in the court and was directed to collect the vouchers which have been collected by him and are in his possession. He is directed to present the bill to the treasury officer within a week and if encashed make payment or deposit the said payment in the account of the petitioner within two weeks. 6. Regarding T.A. Bill, it is seen that the T.A. Bill, pertains to the period October 2000 and has been claimed and presented by the petitioner in August 2002. T.A. claim being not presented claimed within a period of one year, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to said T.A. claim being time-barred in terms of Regulation 368 of Civil Service Regulations, which reads as under : 368, No bill for travelling allowance (other than permanent allowance) of an officer should be paid unless it is (i) countersigned as per note below, and (ii) presented within one year from the completion of the month to which the journey pertains. The right of a Government servant to travelling allowance including daily allowance is forfeited or deemed to have been relinquished, if the claim for it is not preferred within one year from the date on which it became due. However, a travelling allowance claim may at the option of the claimant be preaudited even though it is not overdue." 7. The petitioner was under obligation to raise the claim of travelling allowance within a period of one year. However, a travelling allowance claim may at the option of the claimant be preaudited even though it is not overdue." 7. The petitioner was under obligation to raise the claim of travelling allowance within a period of one year. The petitioner has not claimed the travelling allowance within one year, therefore it stood forfeited. Mr. Goja, learned counsel for the petitioner has not submitted any rebuttal to this provision of law which disentitle the petitioner to claim travelling allowance. 8. It is stated by the respondents at the bar that the petitioner is entitled to the salary from October 2000 to February 2001 but could not be paid because of transfer of funds from District Budgam to District Jammu. The petitioner is not concerned with the transfer of funds. He is entitled to the salary and the respondents should have paid it in time. The petitioner has waited for two years, still the respondents are contesting it though the claim is not denied. It is also submitted by the respondents that they do not have funds at present, whereas the petitioner reported back to Budgam in March 2001 and retired in July 2002, while the funds were available upto March 2001 and he should have drawn the salary. Controverting this, Mr. Goja has submitted that the funds were not available with the Office of ADMO Budgam and the petitioner had written to the higher authorities for release of the funds. Be that as it may, the respondents have to pay the salary to the petitioner. The respondents are, therefore, directed to release the salary in favour of petitioner for the period October 2000 to February 2001 within a period of three months. In case it is not paid within the stipulated period, the respondents will be liable to pay interest on the amount of unpaid salary @ 9% p.a. Petition is disposed of in the terms indicated above. No order as to costs.