Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 736 (PNJ)

Dewan Bal Krishan v. State of Haryana

2013-05-29

Ritu Bahri

body2013
JUDGMENT Ms. Ritu Bahri, J.: - The petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the orders dated 9.9.1993 (Annexure P4) and dated 20.9.1993 (Annexure P5). 2. The petitioner was appointed as Member of the District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum, Jind, vide notification dated 1.11.1991 (Annexure P1). The District level Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum has been established under the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988. The petitioner was appointed as a non-judicial member of the forum. He was resident of Narwana and used to attend the proceedings. The petitioner was using his own car for the purpose of attending the meetings of District Forum. He had to travel 80 kms. for attending one meeting. The petitioner submitted his bills to the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum for reimbursement of his claim of travelling allowance with effect from April 1992. The said bills were forwarded to the Secretary, Government of Haryana, for sanction (Annexure P2). The total of the said bills with effect from April 1992 comes to about Rs.50,000/-. 3. The President of the District Forum on receiving the funds from the Government vide letter dated 24.7.1993 (Annexure P3) wrote to respondent No.1 to return back the travelling allowance bills of the petitioner for payment. The respondent No.2 vide communication dated 9.9.1993 and 20.9.1993 (Annexures P4 and P5 respectively) informed the President of the Consumer Forum that the non-official members were travelling by their own cars and no travelling allowance/dearness allowance was admissible to them. 4. On notice, reply has been filed by the respondents. As per Rule 3(2) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules, 1988 the President and members of the District Forum were entitled to such travelling allowance and daily allowance on official tour “as is admissible to Class-I Officers of the State Government.” Rule 2.35 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol.III) as applicable to State of Haryana is reproduced below:- “A Government employee is on tour when absent on duty from his headquarters either within, or, with proper sanction, beyond his sphere of duty. For the purposes of this Section, a journey to a hill station is not treated as a journey on tour.” 5. As per this Rule, the TA/DA is admissible when the members are on tour from the headquarters. The petitioner’s headquarter is at Jind and he is entitled to draw TA/DA if he is on tour from Jind. For the purposes of this Section, a journey to a hill station is not treated as a journey on tour.” 5. As per this Rule, the TA/DA is admissible when the members are on tour from the headquarters. The petitioner’s headquarter is at Jind and he is entitled to draw TA/DA if he is on tour from Jind. The journey from Nirwana to Jind cannot be treated as on official tour and he cannot be paid TA/DA from Narwana to Jind for attending the meetings of the forum. The petitioner is a part-time member since November 1991. He is entitled for a consolidated honorarium at the rate of Rs.100/- per sitting. 6. As per Rule 3(2) of the Haryana Consumer Protection Rules 1988 he has no right to claim TA/DA for attending meetings at the forum at the headquarters. 7. Vide order dated 20.9.1993 (Annexure R/1) petitioner’s claim for TA/DA has been declined. The petitioner has been appointed as Member on part-time basis for the District Forum, Jind, in November 1991 on a consolidated honorarium of Rs.100/- per day for each sitting. Hence, he has no right to claim TA/DA for attending meetings at the Headquarters from Nirwana to Jind. As per Rule 2.35 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Vol.III) the claim of TA/DA is not made out. Vide letter dated 20.9.1993 the claim of TA bills of the petitioner has been considered and returned. They have been treated at par with the non-official members of the State Advisory Committee. These members are entitled to TA/DA as admissible to Grade-I Sub Clause (ii) Government Employees of the State Government and they are not entitled to travel by their own cars owned by them while attending meetings of such Advisory Committee. 8. In the written statement it has further been clarified that payment of TA/DA under the Travelling Allowance Rules is classification of basic pay. As per the revised TA instructions Grade-I officers have been divided into two categories. Officers of Grade-I Sub Clause (i) drawing a basic salary of Rs.5,000/- and above are entitled to travel by their own car. It means that the travelling allowance is admissible to Grade-I Sub Clause (i) officers. As per the revised TA instructions Grade-I officers have been divided into two categories. Officers of Grade-I Sub Clause (i) drawing a basic salary of Rs.5,000/- and above are entitled to travel by their own car. It means that the travelling allowance is admissible to Grade-I Sub Clause (i) officers. The petitioner working on an honorarium of Rs.100/- per sitting has been classified as Government Employees Grade-I Sub Clause (ii) and as per letter dated 20.9.1993 (Annexure R/1) these employees are not entitled to travel by their own car. 9. The petitioner is admittedly not getting a basic salary of Rs.5,000/- and above and he cannot be equated with Grade-I Sub Clause (i) officers and as per the revised TA instructions is not entitled to travel by his own car. On this ground alone, the claim of the petitioner for grant of TA from his residence at Narwana to attend the meetings at Jind is liable to be rejected. The writ petition is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————