Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2275 (BOM)

Prakash Mutagi v. State of Goa

2012-12-06

A.P.LAVANDE, U.V.BAKRE

body2012
Judgment : (A.P. Lavande, J.) Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mahambrey, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 and Mr. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.4. None appears on behalf of respondent no.5. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks direction to respondent no.4 to issue ex-post facto concurrence to his tour to France in order to facilitate the clearance of TA/DA final bill and direction to respondents no.1 to 3 to release and pay to him his salary for the month of December, 2006 and to pay all his consequential dues to which he is entitled in view of voluntary retirement. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:- In the year 2003, the petitioner was serving as Assistant Professor in Goa Engineering College. All India Council for Technical Education granted approval to the petitioner for attending International Conference at Paris for presentation of paper on a particular subject. An amount of Rs.49,516/-was sanctioned by respondent no.5. On 22/10/2003, respondent no.1 accorded sanction for payment of Rs.6,000/-towards Passport, Rs.3,000/-towards Visa and Rs.3,000/-for registration fees and the claim of TA/DA in the sum of Rs.62,000/-was also granted. On 29/10/2003, the petitioner requested respondent no.3 to obtain concurrence from Ministry of External Affairs since such concurrence was required in view of the grant of TA/DA advanced by the State Government. 4. In the first week of November, 2003, the petitioner attended the Conference. Thereafter, in January, 2004, the petitioner sent reminders to respondent no.3 to obtain approval from Ministry of External Affairs. Pursuant thereto, on 08/01/2004, respondent no.3 sought ex-post facto approval from Ministry of External Affairs for the petitioner's tour. Thereafter, the petitioner sent three reminders to respondent no.3. In January, 2004, Directorate of Accounts returned the salary bill of the petitioner for the month of December, 2006 on the ground that sanction from Ministry of External Affairs was not enclosed. Since Ministry of External Affairs had not granted ex-post facto approval without any genuine grounds, the petitioner filed the present petition which was subsequently amended. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner took VRS in October, 2006, and on 02/01/2007, the petitioner was relieved from services. 5. Since Ministry of External Affairs had not granted ex-post facto approval without any genuine grounds, the petitioner filed the present petition which was subsequently amended. It appears that thereafter, the petitioner took VRS in October, 2006, and on 02/01/2007, the petitioner was relieved from services. 5. The only limited grievance made by the petitioner in this petition is that his salary for the month of December, 2006 has been withheld notwithstanding the fact that demand was made by the State Government to Ministry of External Affairs to grant ex-post facto approval for the tour of the petitioner to Paris. 6. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of inaction on the part of Ministry of External Affairs in not taking any decision on the request made by the State Government to grant ex-post facto approval to the petitioner for his Paris tour. Learned Counsel further submitted that the tour of the petitioner to Paris was approved by respondent no.1 as well as respondent no.5 and he had attended the Conference and as such, on account of inaction on the part of Ministry of External Affairs, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer and he is entitled to the reliefs sought for. 7. Mr. Mahambrey, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 submitted that in view of the fact that Ministry of External Affairs had not granted ex-post facto approval for the tour of the petitioner to Paris, respondent no.1 is justified in withholding the salary of the petitioner for the month of December, 2006. 8. Mr. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no.4 points out that no relief has been claimed by the petitioner against respondent no.4. 9. Perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner's tour to attend International Conference at Paris was approved by respondents no.1 and 5 and certain amounts were sanctioned by respondent no.1 as well as respondent no.5 and the petitioner attended the Conference at Paris in the first week of November, 2003 and presented the paper. The record also discloses that in 2004, the State Government had sought ex-post facto approval from Ministry of External Affairs for the tour of the petitioner, but till date no decision has been communicated by Ministry of External Affairs to the petitioner. 10. The record also discloses that in 2004, the State Government had sought ex-post facto approval from Ministry of External Affairs for the tour of the petitioner, but till date no decision has been communicated by Ministry of External Affairs to the petitioner. 10. In our view, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of inaction on the part of Ministry of External Affairs in not taking any decision on the request made by the State Government to grant ex-post facto approval, more particularly having regard to the fact that the approval was granted by respondents no.1 and 5 to attend the Conference and present paper. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part. This being the position, in our view, the petitioner is entitled to his salary for the month of December, 2006 and in the facts and circumstances of the case, he cannot be denied the same solely on the ground that approval by Ministry of External Affairs has not been granted to the petitioner for his tour to Paris. 11. In view of the above, we direct respondent no.1 to release the salary of the petitioner for the month of December, 2006 and pay the same to the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from today. 12. It also appears that the bill in respect of the tour undertaken by the petitioner to Paris, has not also been settled for the very same reason. We also direct respondent no.1 to finalise the bill in accordance with the rules except that respondent no.1 shall not insist upon the approval of Ministry of External Affairs for finalising the bill. 13. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.