Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 145 (HP)

Bhagwan Dutt v. State of H. P.

2012-03-29

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner made a written request to avail Leave Travelling Concession (Bharat Darshan) on 16.12.2009. The necessary permission was granted to avail Leave Travelling Concession on 02.02.2010. Petitioner proceeded on Bharat Darshan on 04.01.2010. He submitted the bills on 30.04.2010. Petitioner submitted the bill Ex. P-2 issued by the Himachal Travels on 05.04.2010. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 21.05.2011 vide Annexure P-3 by making reference to instructions issued on the subject on 29.12.1998. 2. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the decision dated 21.05.2011 is contrary to law. He then argued that his client was entitled to some claim by way of L.T.C. 3. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that the case of the petitioner was not covered under the instructions issued on the subject on 29.12.1998 read with Leave Concession Rules. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner, as noticed above, submitted an application on 16.12.2009 to avail Leave Travelling Concession (Bharat Darshan). He has undertaken the journey on 04.01.2010. He has submitted the bills only on 30.04.2010. It is clear from the plain language of office memorandum dated 29th December, 1998 that the journey on L.T.C. is to be undertaken by chartered buses on tour conducted by Government/Semi Government and Local Body Agencies which include Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam and it would be admissible only if the tour is wholly conducted/operated by the bodies in buses owned by them and registered with the Regional Transport Authorities in their names. It is also clarified by way of abundant precaution that reimbursement of traveling expenses on L.T.C. would not be admissible for tour conducted by such Government/Semi Government and Local Body Agencies, if the same is conducted in a bus leased, hired or chartered from private parties/persons by such Government, Local Body Agencies. In the instant case, the petitioner has obtained the tickes, that too, on 05.04.2010 vide Annexure P-2 from Himachal Travels. What is written on this ticket, is that it is recognised by the H.P. Government. In the instant case, the petitioner has obtained the tickes, that too, on 05.04.2010 vide Annexure P-2 from Himachal Travels. What is written on this ticket, is that it is recognised by the H.P. Government. Petitioner, on the basis of Annexure P-2, is not entitled to get reimbursement of L.T.C. amount as the tour was required to be conducted by Government/Semi Government and Local Body Agencies which include Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam and that too in the buses owned by them and registered with the Regional Transport Authorities in their names. Thus, in case the L.T.C. facility is availed through private operators, the claim is not permissible. The reimbursement of travelling expenses is not admissible in those cases where Government/Semi Government and Local Body Agencies conducts the tour in a bus leased, hired or chartered from private parties/persons by such Government, Local Body Agencies. When an employee intends to avail of the concession to visit anywhere in India (Bharat Darshan) by himself or by any member(s) of his family, he has to declare the intended place of visit to the Controlling Officer. In the instant case, the petitioner has not done so before availing L.T.C.. He has given the place of his visit only on 20.10.2010. It is definitely an afterthought. 6. Mr. Jia Lal Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the similarly situate persons have been given reimbursement. It will not advance the case of the petitioner, as his case is required to be covered as per the Leave Concession Rules read with instructions/memorandum issued from time to time covering the subject. If a person has been wrongly granted the reimbursement, on the same analogy, petitioner is not entitled to the same. Article 14 is positive concept and cannot be applied negatively. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.