JUDGMENT Mr. Narinder Thakur, Honble Member (Judl.) 1. The applicant has filed the present original application mainly for the following reliefs: "(a) quash the impugned orders A-1 and A-2 issued arbitrarily, malafidely and illegally by the respondents; (b) direct the respondents to pass the TA claim bill of the applicant for the full amount by allowing the rates as are applicable to the Central Government Officials on duty on foreign assignment, and pay the same to the applicant alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the realisation of the same from August 1997; OR (c) direct the respondents to pay the TA to the applicant as per his entitlements via shortest rout by Air from Dhaka to Delhi, thereafter by train from Delhi to Kalka and then by Taxi from Kalka to Nauni for self, his wife and one child as the whole of the family is entitled for journey back to home station notwithstanding the fact that at first instance the applicant had to leave his wife and child at Shilong and pay for the entitled luggage weighing 28 Qtl. Fare @ Rs. 7.00 per KM and (d) The respondent No. 4 should be made liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- apart from the actual TA claim for causing mental tension and harassment to the applicant since the time of submitting the TA claim by the applicant to the respondents till the same was finally rejected and restricted to Rs. 26,029/-, causing huge financial loss;". 2. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 01.07.1999 and 07.07.1999 (Annexure-A/1) and 07.09.1999 (Annexure-A/2) issued by the respondents whereby the TA claim of the applicant on the foreign assignment for an amount of Rs. 47,343/-submitted by the applicant in August 1997 has been rejected and passed only for an amount of Rs. 16,029/- 3. The facts of the case as given in the Original Application are that the applicant was deputed on foreign assignment as deputy director (Information) under the SAARC Agricultural Information Center at Dhakka, alongwith one Shri Shabd Saran Srivastava, Sr. Librarian of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Library Venue, New Delhi-12 on behalf of Government of India. The applicant as well as the said Shri Srivastava were sent on three years assignment commencing w.e.f. 1994. 4. Librarian of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Library Venue, New Delhi-12 on behalf of Government of India. The applicant as well as the said Shri Srivastava were sent on three years assignment commencing w.e.f. 1994. 4. That as per the terms and conditions of the said assignment the cost towards the International Air Fare and protection of the salary of the persons deputed on assignment with SAIC was to be borne by the Administrative Institutions from which the officer was drawing salary and allowances and this was made clear to the respondent University by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi vide their latter dated 12.08.1994 (Annexure-A/3) in no uncertain terms that as per the SAARC regulations, the liability of the University will be: (i) to meet the salary for the period of deputation and (ii) to meet the cost of transfer passages for the family including personal effects. (iii) in addition the applicant was entitled to local living allowances etc. from SAIC, Dhaka". 5. That the applicant continued in the said assignment upto August 1997 on behalf of the Government of India it is contended that the applicant was representing the government of India on the above assignment with clear stipulation that the expenses with regard to salary etc. are to be borne by the respective administrative institutions. As such the applicant was to be reimbursed by the respondent department the actual expenses incurred by the applicant on his journey back home at the rates fixed by the Central Government. The details of journey performed by the applicant are furnished as under: 15-08-1997 The applicant started journey back home alongwith his wife and daughter and reached Tamabil the same day by road through Taxi. 16-08-1997 The applicant started with his family from Tamabil on 16-08-1997 at 10 AM to Shillong and reached there the same day at 1.30 PM by road through taxi and availed the journey break period at Shillong from 17-08-1997 to 23-08-1997. 24-08-1997 The applicant started his journey alone at about 7 AM leaving his wife and daughter there and reached at Guawahati Air Port at 11 AM by Taxi and from guawahati started journey by Air at 1.30 AM to Delhi and reached at Delhi at 4 PM. 24-08-1997 The applicant started his journey alone at about 7 AM leaving his wife and daughter there and reached at Guawahati Air Port at 11 AM by Taxi and from guawahati started journey by Air at 1.30 AM to Delhi and reached at Delhi at 4 PM. 25-08-1997 The applicant started journey from Delhi to Kalka by a train at 10.45 PM and reached Kalka on 26-08-1997 in the morning at 6 AM. From Kalka the applicant started his journey on 26-08-1997 at 6.30 for Nauni by road through Taxi and reached at 9 AM". 6. It is further contended that the rates of allowances admissible to the applicant as per the Govt. of India rules and regulations are as has been intimated by the High commission of India vide its letter dated 03-08-1997 (Annexure-A/4) and 2-07-1997 (Annexure-A/4a), which was sent in response to the letter of the applicant. It is further contended that the communication (Annexure-A/4) has duly been submitted to the respondents for their perusal and further necessary action in accordance with the same. It is further contended that the rates as quoted by the empanelled Packers & shippers are also annexed herewith for kind perusal of this Tribunal which are as per Annexure-A/5. 7. it is contended that the personal effects of the applicant were booked by the applicant at Dhaka on 15-08-1997 through authorised agents namely, MR Enterprises Dhaka, upto Indian Border and form Indian border the same was booked on 16-08-1997 to Shillong through Private Truck No. ML 05B 2799. The said luggage was booked by the applicant on 19-08-1997 from Shillong to Nauni through Transporter Allahabad Mirzapur Road Lines-Lorry NO. DILOIL/7869 due to the reasons that the rates of the said transporter were far cheaper then the authorised Packers and Shippers. 8. Accordingly the applicant has filed in the form for claim of TA (Annexure-A/6) in August 1997 after joining duties with the respondent department for reimbursement of the actual expenses incurred by him on his journey including his personal effects in accordance with the rules and his entitlements, amounting to Rs. 47,343/-. The said clam was kept by the applicant to the barest lowest actual expenses. 47,343/-. The said clam was kept by the applicant to the barest lowest actual expenses. It is contended that even the competent authority (the then Comptroller) has put remark on the back of the said claim to pass the same as the name of the applicant was sponsored by the Government of India to conduct his tour hence the TA claim preferred by the applicant will naturally be regularised/passed under Central Government Rules and the payment be released to the applicant accordingly. 9. The applicant alleges that the above said legitimate claim of the applicant was subjected by the respondent No 4 to frequent piecemeal objections despite repeated requests/representations/ clarifications by the applicant and ultimately the claim of the applicant was arbitrarily and illegally passed by the respondent No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 16,029/-, thus causing huge loss as well as mental agonies to the applicant. The way in which the claim of the applicant was subjected to piecemeal objections and ensuing delay in settlement of the same amply goes to show the arbitrariness and malafide intention of the respondent No. 4. 10. The applicant further contended that so much so, even the government of Himachal Pradesh has also clarified (Annexure-A/6) that the claim of the applicant be regulated by the shortest route, i.e. Dhaka to Calcutta to Delhi and restricted to rail/air journey by the class of his entitlement. And as the wife and daughter of the applicant have travelled upto Tamable border or Shillong, the claim in respect of these member could be paid through the route they actually travelled. 11. The applicant further submitted that in case the applicant would have performed his journey way back to Nauni-Solan from Dhaka through the shortest route and as per his entitlement to travel and carry luggage, the TA claim would had been as under: (a) Rs. 21891.75 Being fare of himself, his wife and his daughter from Dhaka to Delhi by Air @ Rs. 7292.25 per ticket inclusive of air port tax. (b)Rs. 150/- Taxi fare from Delhi Airport to Railway station at Delhi. (c)Rs. 1572/- Train fare from Delhi to Kalka for 3 tickets @ Rs. 524/- per ticket as per entitlement. (d) Rs. 360/- Taxi fare from Kalka to Nauni for 3 persons @ Rs. 120/- per person. 12. 7292.25 per ticket inclusive of air port tax. (b)Rs. 150/- Taxi fare from Delhi Airport to Railway station at Delhi. (c)Rs. 1572/- Train fare from Delhi to Kalka for 3 tickets @ Rs. 524/- per ticket as per entitlement. (d) Rs. 360/- Taxi fare from Kalka to Nauni for 3 persons @ Rs. 120/- per person. 12. In addition to the fare as aforesaid of the family of the applicant upto Nauni-Solan, the claim for carriage of Luggage from Dhaka to Delhi via shortest route would had been as under: (a) Tk. 29680/- @ Tk 1060/- per 100 kgs for 2800 kgs as packing charges since he was entitled to the carriage of 2800 kgs with family though he actually carried 3000 kgs upto Nauni-Solan. (b) Tk 8400/- @ Tk 3/- per kg for 2800 kgs for custom clearance and agency charges etc. (c) Tk 26000/- Being transportation charges from Petrapole border to New Delhi for only 2500 kgs though he was entitled to carry 2800 kgs. 13. Thus total Tks (Bangladesh Currency) would had been Tk. 65280/- for carriage of personal effects only, which comes to Rs. 52645.16. In all the applicant would had claimed a cum of Rs. 76618.91 in case he would had come with his family via shortest route and as per his entitlement by Air to reach Nauni-Solan. He would had also claimed some more amount for the carriage of his luggage from Delhi to Nauni-Solan as the carriage of goods is calculated only upto Delhi and not upto Nauni-Solan. 14. The applicant has made the clarification/representations and sent a legal notice to the respondents to pass the claim of the applicant as submitted by him dated 28-03-1998 (A-8), August 1998 (A-9), January 30, 1999 (A-10), March 4,1999 (A-11) and Legal notice dated August 27, 1999 (A-12). 15. That the applicant averred that he was Jegitimately expecting that his genuine and legitimate claim of TA will be passed for the full amount of actual expenditure incurred by the applicant as per his entitlements as has been done in case of the other colleague by his respective department. 16. He alleges that the respondent audit department has arbitrarily applied the rules of HP. Govt. while passing the TA claim of the applicant as the H.P. Government rules are silent so far as TA claims of the officials on foreign assignments are concerned. 17. 16. He alleges that the respondent audit department has arbitrarily applied the rules of HP. Govt. while passing the TA claim of the applicant as the H.P. Government rules are silent so far as TA claims of the officials on foreign assignments are concerned. 17. That respondent No. 4 has been prejudicial and biased in dealing the claim of the applicant. The respondent No. 4 being fully aware that H.P. State TA rules are not applicable in foreign country. He further states that so much so, even the than comptroller of the University had made specific endorsement on the TA bill submitted by the applicant that the claim of the applicant is to be regulated in accordance with the Govt. of Indias TA Rules since the claimant was on govt. of Indias assignment. The respondent No. 4 has still arbitrarily, malafidely and illegally not agreed to the applicability of the Govt. of Indias TA Rules despite clarification by the Comptroller of the University. Neither has the respondent No. 4 given any cogent reasons for not applying the Central governments Rules issued by the High Commission of India, at Dhaka. 18. The reply was filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly and by respondents No. 3 separately. Respondents No. 4 has also filed the reply through his counsel also who has been arrayed as respondent by name. It is merely a repetition of reply filed by respondent No. 1 and 2. In reply filed by respondent No. 1 and 2, it has been stated that the claim of the applicant has been passed for Rs. 16,029/- by the audit wing of the university but the same has not been presented to the university for payment. Further it has been contended that the Original Application is barred by limitation as the Original Application has been preferred on the expiry of 3 years from the dismissal of CWP 435/1994. 19. It is further contended by the respondent No. 2 and 3 in their reply that the petitioner has got the transfer travelling allowance bill passed from the audit wing by exercising the powers of Drawing and disbursing Officer by not presenting the full facts of the case before the audit wing of the university. 19. It is further contended by the respondent No. 2 and 3 in their reply that the petitioner has got the transfer travelling allowance bill passed from the audit wing by exercising the powers of Drawing and disbursing Officer by not presenting the full facts of the case before the audit wing of the university. The true fact of this case is that the petitioner was allowed to go on deputation outside India vide decision of the board of Management item No. 15 meeting held on 27-05-1994 as per Annexure-R/1 for a period of 3 months with salary only without even transfer passage. The petitioner/ applicant filed one CWP No. 435 in 1994 in the Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 13-07-1994 against the decision of the Board of Management for allowing him to go to SAARC, Dhaka on deputation with protection of full pay and TTA. The High Court granted interim relief on 14-07-1994 in CMP No. 1000 of 1994 as per Annexure-R/2 pending final disposal of the CWP on merits. After orders of the High Court, the petitioner left for Dhaka in the same month and availed this deputation pending decision on the case on merits. In the meantime, on 05-09-1994 the interim stay was confirmed by the Honble High Court pending filing of reply in CWP No. 435/94 by the University as per Annexure-R/3. The CWP No. 435 of 1994 of the petitioner was ultimately dismissed by the Honble High Court 22-09-1997 on the jurisdiction basis, in view of judgement rendered in CWP No. 170/90 case titled as MP Dewedi Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University. The petitioner was, however, left with the liberty to approach the State Administrative Tribunal, if he so desired. During the month of August, 1997 when the petitioner came back to India and joined duties in the university he preferred inward transfer passage (TTA Claim) and passed this claim worth Rs. 47,343/- himself by exercising the powers of the Drawing and Disbursing officer in the month of October, 1998 knowing fully well that his petition already stood dismissed by the Honble High Court of H.P. in the month of September, 1997 and interim stay granted on his CMP No. 1000/94 automatically stood vacated. 47,343/- himself by exercising the powers of the Drawing and Disbursing officer in the month of October, 1998 knowing fully well that his petition already stood dismissed by the Honble High Court of H.P. in the month of September, 1997 and interim stay granted on his CMP No. 1000/94 automatically stood vacated. The petitioner had presented this claim which otherwise was not payable to the petitioner as per the decision of the board of management in view of provision of Statutes 7.11 (iv). 20. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 it has been stated that TA claim has been admitted as per rules and rates applicable to the University employees and not on the rules applicable to the employees of Central Government. It is further stated that there was no undertaking to pay as admissible to the Central Govt. It is further stated in para 6.11 (h) that the University employees are governed under rules, applicable to the employees of State government. As such the clarifications given by the H.P., Govt. are required to be followed and were always being implemented in the past. 21. Rejoinder has also been filed by the applicant. It has been stated that the audit wing had no authority to adjudicate upon the rightful claim of the applicant and the applicant is not bound by the passing of the claim by the audit wing. It is further stated that the dismissal of CWP No. 435/94 has no effect on the claim of the applicant. The present controversy was not the subject matter of the -Writ Petition in the Honble High Court. The interim order of the Honble High Court to relieve the applicant to Dacca, was duly complied with by the respondents and thus the matter cannot be reopened. It is further stated that the respondent No. 1 never disputed the legitimacy and the genuineness of the claim of the applicant, as is evident from the documents filed by the applicant with the Original Application. Therefore respondents University is stopped from denying or contesting the claim of the applicant. 22. In the second rejoinder filed against the reply filed by respondent No. 3 it has been stated that the case of the applicant is x not governed by the HP. State Employees Rules. 23. Therefore respondents University is stopped from denying or contesting the claim of the applicant. 22. In the second rejoinder filed against the reply filed by respondent No. 3 it has been stated that the case of the applicant is x not governed by the HP. State Employees Rules. 23. I have heard the rival contentions of the counsel for the respective parties and gone through the pleadings of the parties carefully. 24. First thing first the question of limitation has been raised by the respondent University stating that OA has been preferred on the expiry of three years from the dismissal of CWP No. 435/94. This contention of the University is wholly misconceived as the controversy in the present OA is confined to the TA claim preferred by the applicant on his return journey from deputation in Dhaka. The same has been admitted in toto as preferred by the applicant and the same was ultimately rejected to the applicant vide letter dated 7-7-19991 Annexure-A/1 and letter dated 7.9.1999 Annexure-A/2 after which the! applicant has approached this Tribunal by filling the present original i application on 11.5.2000 which is within one year from the date of cause of action accrued after not admitting the clam of the applicant. In case titled as Mohinder Singh Malai versus Commissioner Municipal corporation Shimla reported in Latest HLJ 2001 (HP) 439 the division Bench of the Honble High Court of H.P. while reversing the order dated 3.4.2000 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 853/90 held that the limitation starts running from the final order. In the instant case the impugned order Annexure-A/1 and A-2 were passed on 7.7.1999 and 7.9.1999 and as such the Original Application is within the limitation I from these dates. 25. The second contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that since the Writ Petition No. 435/94 has been dismissed in September, 1997 as such the interim order passed by the Honble High court also emerges with the final order and the applicant cannot be therefore derived any benefit from that. In this context, learned counsel for the University has drawn my contention to the judgement of Honble High Court of Allahabad titled as Shyam Lal Versus State of UP reported in AIR 1968 Vol-55 (Allahbad) 139. In this context, learned counsel for the University has drawn my contention to the judgement of Honble High Court of Allahabad titled as Shyam Lal Versus State of UP reported in AIR 1968 Vol-55 (Allahbad) 139. In para-7 of the judgment it has been observed that an interim order merges in the final order and does not existed by itself. This judgment is not applicable in the present case on two counts. Firstly the fact in that case was that Shri Shyam Lal the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 17-04-1953. On 24-04-1953 he filed writ against the said order and obtained interim order on 01-10-1953. The said writ petition was dismissed. 26. He filed Special Leave Petition before the Honble Apex court on 13.10.1953 and obtained conditional interim order on the specific undertaking given by him that "the petitioner gives his consent that if the appeal is decided against him, money paid to him should be deducted from the provident fund amount which is due to him." He ultimately lost the case both the Honble apex Court and as such whatever benefits as he got by way of interim order were deducted from his provident fund in accordance with the consent given by him. Therefore, in the second count of litigation he filed suit for recovery of those deduction. It was in this factual background that this observation was made. Secondly the appeal of Shri Shyam Lal was dismissed on merits. In the present case CWP of the applicant has been dismissed on jurisdiction without making any observation in the case. On the other hand the learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the case of the applicant is governed by FR 51-A which reads: "When a Government Servant is with proper sanction deputed for duty out of India to hold a regularly constituted permanent or quasi-permanent post, other than a post borne on the cadre of the service to which he belongs, his pay shall be regulated by the orders of the Central Government". 27. He further submits that FRSR are equally applicable to the University employees and the Himachal Pradesh State employees. In reply to respondent to the employees are governed under rules, applicable to the employees of State Government. 27. He further submits that FRSR are equally applicable to the University employees and the Himachal Pradesh State employees. In reply to respondent to the employees are governed under rules, applicable to the employees of State Government. It remains un-controverted fact that the applicant was deputed on foreign assignment as a Deputy director (Information) under the SAARC Agriculture Information Center at Dhakka alongwith one Shrivastava, Senior Librarian of the Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, Library Venue, New Delhi-12 on behalf o the Government of India, the applicant as well as the said Shri Srivastava were sent on three years assignment commencing w.e.f. 1994. 28. As per the terms and conditions of the said assignment the cost towards the International Air Fare and protection of to salary of the persons deputed on assignment with SAIC was to be borne by the Administrative Institutions from which the officer was drawing salary and allowances and this was made clear to the respondent University by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi vide their letter dated 12-08-1994 Annexure-A/3. The similar situated person has been given the benefit but the benefit to the applicant has been denied on wholly unfounded grounds. The Honble High Court of Himachal Pradesh while passing interim order on 14-7-1994 in CMP No. 1001/94 has rightly observed that all the formalities were finalised and the name of the petitioner was cleared. Now when the stage of moving came the University has come forwarded to oppose it to the extent of the protection of pay and transfer passage. Prima facie the stand of the University prima facie appears to be quite unreasonable. All these things were very well in the notice of the University right from the beginning and it is too late to oppose the case of the petitioner on these grounds. There is a force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant. 29. It is also worth while to note here that the applicant has completed his deputation and journey back to his station of work before the Writ Petition was dismissed on jurisdiction. Moreover, he is not claiming any thing on the basis of his earlier Writ Petition or the interim order passed in that. 29. It is also worth while to note here that the applicant has completed his deputation and journey back to his station of work before the Writ Petition was dismissed on jurisdiction. Moreover, he is not claiming any thing on the basis of his earlier Writ Petition or the interim order passed in that. His present claim is independent and based on FR 51-A and the clarification given by the High Commission of India vide his letter dated 3.8.1997 Annexure-A/4 and 27-7-1997 Annexure-A/4(a). Nothing has been shown as to how the rates applicable within the Himachal Pradesh can be made applicable for deputation to Foreign Country. 30. The applicant has preferred his claim on the actual expenses he has incurred and as per his averments made in the Original Application he has preferred claim for the lesser amount than he was actually entitled. The applicant is thus entitled to the actual expenses incurred by him and for his wife and daughter upto the station of his duty. Therefore, the action of respondents in not paying the full amount of expenses incurred by the applicant on his journey back to the station of his duty is wholly wrong and un-reasonable. 31. In the above premises I allow the present Original Application and quash the impugned order Annexure-A-1 and A-2 issued by the respondents. I further direct the respondents to pass TA claim Bill of the applicant for the full amount by allowing the rates as are applicable to the central Government Official on duty on foreign assignment and pay the same to the applicant. The above directions will be complied with within four weeks from this order. So far as the damages against respondent No. 4 are concerned I leave this question upon the applicant to approach appropriate forum if he so advised as this is not a forum where the damage can be claimed. In view of this position the present Original Application stands disposed of wit no order as to costs.