ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J. Petitioner has filed present petition seeking a writ of mandamus against the respondents for payment of daily allowance because he was sent on temporary duty to Sri Lanka individually pursuant to order issued by the respondents. The case of petitioner is that in July, 1987 Govt. of India decided to send its troops under the mission known as Indian Peace Keeping Force, i.e., an Exercise known as OP Pawan, by which the troops were moved for the mission. During the aforesaid operation in Srilanka different agencies and personnels of defence as well as civilians were sent to Srilanka for their specialized nature of assignments to be executed in Srilanka. These persons were paid from defence establishment daily allowances apart from expenditure incurred. The petitioner at the relevant time was posted as Major at Udhampur (Northern Command). He was telephonically ordered to move individually for New Delhi for briefing in respect of a specified nature of assignment to be executed in Srilanka. This was communicated to the petitioner on 18-11-1988. The petitioner immediately moved and reported at Delhi on 19-11-1988. At Delhi the petitioner undergone one month's training/briefing. Thereafter he was directed to move to Srilanka to execute the specialized assignment, nature of which has not been disclosed in the interest of national security. It was made clear that the petitioner's movement to Srilanka was not in connection with any exercise/training. The petitioner in compliance of the aforesaid order remained in Srilanka in following period: a) 29-12-1988 to 9-1-1989 b) 23-1-1989 to 25-3-1989 c) 7-8-1989 to 18-10-1989 After completion of the assignment, the petitioner submitted his bill of daily allowance but the aforesaid amount was not released by the respondents in spite of correspondence made by the petitioner. Thereafter, vide letter dated 20 February, 1992 (Annexure D-5), his claim was denied on the ground that the petitioner's assignment in Srilanka was in connection with OP Pawan, so, he was entitled to only expatriation allowance which was already paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner served a notice demanding the said amount. This notice was also replied by the respondents on the same ground and the claim of petitioner was not accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner filed present petition seeking the aforesaid direction. The respondents have filed return in the case. Thereafter, the petitioner served a notice demanding the said amount. This notice was also replied by the respondents on the same ground and the claim of petitioner was not accepted. Thereafter, the petitioner filed present petition seeking the aforesaid direction. The respondents have filed return in the case. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner was deputed to Srilanka on temporary duty in connection with OP Pawan and was entitled to proportionate expatriation allowance at appropriate rates depending on the number of days of temporary duty which has already been paid to the petitioner. In para-6.1 and 6.2, respondents have categorically stated that "respondents will submit documents to prove the claim of the respondents that the petitioner was sent only as a part of OP Pawan Operation and not for any other assignment." On these grounds the claim of petitioner was contested by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per Document No. 2 respondents have specifically made clear that the petitioner's move was not in connection with any training/exercise. As the aforesaid document, Annexure D-2, dated 23 August, 1991 is relevant, it is quoted as under: 1. Under the provisions of Rule 4(ii), Travel Regulations and Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. A/40275/SD 4(a)/70-C/D(GS.T) dated 03 Feb 88, as amended ex-post-facto sanction is hereby accorded to IC-29986W Maj DS Walia from his duty station to Sri Lanka and back on temporary duty for the following period:- (a) 29 Dec 88 to 09 Jan 89 (b) 23 Jan 89 to 25 Mar 89 (c) 07 Aug 89 to 18 Oct 89 It is certified that the move is not in connection with any training/exercise. It is certified that the move is in the interest of public service and the nature of duty cannot be disclosed in the interest of security. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the Government of India vide Document No. 3, dated 03 February 1988 has communicated sanction of the President of India for move between India and Srilanka for Army staff and civilians paid by the defence estimate and by the same letter the Chief of Army Staff was authorized for sending individual person including the petitioner to Srilanka. He further contends that as per rule 247 Travel Regulations, the Chief of Army Staff was duly authorised for move and accordingly the petitioner was directed to move. He further contends that as per rule 247 Travel Regulations, the Chief of Army Staff was duly authorised for move and accordingly the petitioner was directed to move. The petitioner's move was not in respect of any exercise or training and OP Pawan was an exercise. He further contends that in spite of specific plea in the return in para-6.1 and 6.2 and directions of this Court dated 13-1-2003, respondents have failed to produce any material/document before the Court showing that the move of petitioner was in connection with OP Pawan. In the circumstances, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the respondents who have failed to produce any document showing the fact that the petitioner's move was in respect of OP Pawan. Contending aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is entitled for daily allowance as claimed by him and is permissible as per Document No. D-1. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has supported the contention of the respondents and has stated that the petitioner's move was in connection with OP Pawan. He supported her arguments by Document R.6, Part II order and contended that this was the record of movement of petitioner which says that the petitioner's move from units was for participation in OP Pawan. She further contended that the documents in respect of OP Pawan are confidential documents which she could not produce. But from the perusal of Part II order, Annexure R-6, it is clear that the petitioner participated in OP Pawan which was an exercise and accordingly the petitioner was paid allowance and he is not entitled for daily allowance as per Document No. 1. Contending aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed. To appreciate the rival contention of the parties, the crux of the case is whether the petitioner's move to Sri Lanka was in relation to OP Pawan or not. It is not disputed before me that OP Pawan was an exercise. To decide the aforesaid controversy between the parties relevant document is Document No. 2, dated 23 August 1991, issued by Staff Duty Apar Mahanideshalaya, General Staff Shakha, Sena Mukhyalaya, General Staff Branch, Army Headquarters, DHQ PO New Delhi. The aforesaid letter was issued much after the move of petitioner. To decide the aforesaid controversy between the parties relevant document is Document No. 2, dated 23 August 1991, issued by Staff Duty Apar Mahanideshalaya, General Staff Shakha, Sena Mukhyalaya, General Staff Branch, Army Headquarters, DHQ PO New Delhi. The aforesaid letter was issued much after the move of petitioner. It is specifically certified that the move of petitioner was not in connection with any training or exercise. It was further certified that the move was in the interest of public service and the nature of duty cannot be disclosed in the interest of security. The aforesaid document does not state that move of petitioner was in connection with OP Pawan. So far as the documents Annexure R-6 and R-1 are concerned, which are the same document, it is apparent that the aforesaid documents are not the documents by which petitioner was directed to move but it is only record of officer to ascertain the location of the officer. From the perusal of Annexure R-1, following word has been written: This SP PART II ORDER NO 55 DATED 22 JULY 89 IS HEREBY CANCELLED AND REPUBLISHED AS UNDER: Respondents have not produced the aforesaid order No. 55 which was subsequently superseded. When it was written is also unascertainable from the perusal of both the documents. The respondents themselves in the return have categorically taken a stand that the respondent will submit documents to prove the fact that the petitioner's move was as a part of OP Pawan. This Court while hearing the case on 13-1-2003 drawn attention of the respondents to this stand. On this learned counsel for the respondents sought time to file document showing the movement of petitioner was in OP Pawan. Thereafter two weeks' time was allowed to the respondents. Thereafter, on 29-1-2003 again respondents sought time to produce the record as the relevant record was at Chennai. Subsequently, on 25-2-2003, learned counsel for the respondents made a statement that the record as required in relation to OP Pawan is not available. Thereafter the matter was heard. The respondents who have specifically taken a stand in return that they will produce the relevant record at the time of hearing, thereafter sought time to produce it but have failed to produce the record. The respondents are in possession of the relevant record by which the petitioner was directed to move to Srilanka. Thereafter the matter was heard. The respondents who have specifically taken a stand in return that they will produce the relevant record at the time of hearing, thereafter sought time to produce it but have failed to produce the record. The respondents are in possession of the relevant record by which the petitioner was directed to move to Srilanka. Respondents ought to have produced the record before the Court by which a direction was issued to petitioner. It was necessary for the respondents to produce the record which may be confidential but withholding the aforesaid record in spite of specific averment in the return has not been explained. The respondents were well aware while filing the return that the aforesaid record will be needed at the time of hearing. They themselves have averred the aforesaid plea that the relevant record will be produced before the Court but in spite of that respondents have failed to produce the aforesaid record. In the circumstances, an adverse inference must be drawn against the respondent who have willfully withheld the aforesaid record which was relevant in the case. In the circumstances, inference is drawn that the record if produced will not support the contention of the respondents who have taken a specific plea that the petitioner's move was as a part of OP Pawan Operation and not for any other assignment. In view of the aforesaid inference and the certificate issued by the respondents Document No. 2, dated 23 August, 91 it is held that the petitioner's move was not in connection with any training/exercise and petitioner was not sent as a part of OP Pawan Operation and was sent for any other assignment nature of which cannot be disclosed because of national security. In the circumstances, the petitioner was entitled for daily allowance as per Document No. 1 and his claim has been wrongly denied by the respondents. This petition deserves to be allowed and following directions are issued: 1. Respondents are directed to pay the petitioner daily allowance as per Government of India, Ministry of Defence letter, dated 21 August 1989 Document No. 1 after deducting the amount paid by the respondents to the petitioner. The respondents will pay the aforesaid amount within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner will get cost of this petition. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/- is allowed. The respondents will pay the aforesaid amount within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner will get cost of this petition. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/- is allowed. Final Result : Allowed