JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner, who was working as Manager (C) under the Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd., in short, “Corporation”, has filed this application seeking a direction to allow him to get his annual increment with effect from 31.5.1995 and also to pay his arrear financial benefits retrospectively, pay the conveyance allowance as per the circular dated 1.6.1996 vide Annexure-5 and grant the medical leave for the period from 17.10.1996 to 9.11.1996. 2. The short facts of the case, in hand, are that the petitioner after passing his Diploma, joined as Sub-Asst. Engineer on 31.3.1965 and was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer on 31.5.1990, which was re-designated as Manager (Civil) and retired from service with effect from 30.6.1997 on attaining the age of superannuation. While he was in service, he was not allowed to cross E.B. at the stage of Rs.2860/- in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.1500-3100/- with effect from 28.1.1990. The next annual increment was due on 28.1.1991. Subsequently, his pay was revised and the scale was changed to Rs.2100-75-2475-85-2900/-, which was paid on 28.01.1991. Subsequently, on promotion to the post of Manager (Civil), his pay was fixed at Rs.3600/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/- w.e.f. 31.5.1990 and he was allowed to draw his annual increment of Rs.100/-in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/- till 31.5.1993. But subsequently, another increment was paid with effect from 31.5.1994 raising his pay upto Rs.4,000/-. The next annual increment was due on 31.5.1995, but at the stage of Rs.4,000/- the petitioner was to cross his E.B. in order to receive increment of Rs.125/-, but the same was not sanctioned in his favour, consequently he was getting less pay them which he was entitled to normally. The petitioner would have been entitled to get three increments by 31.5.1997, i.e. on 31.5.1995, 31.5.1996 and 31.5.1997, as a result of which his scale would have been fixed at Rs.4375/-, whereas he was getting Rs.4100/-. Not allowing the petitioner to cross E.B. at the stage of Rs.4000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/- with effect from 31.5.1995, caused financial loss to him. The petitioner availed leave on medical ground from 17.10.1996 to 9.11.1996. Though he had got 184 days E.L. and 505 days half pay leave as on 30.9.1993 to his credit, he was only allowed 24 days E.L. on 29.11.1996 on medical ground. 3. The petitioner availed leave on medical ground from 17.10.1996 to 9.11.1996. Though he had got 184 days E.L. and 505 days half pay leave as on 30.9.1993 to his credit, he was only allowed 24 days E.L. on 29.11.1996 on medical ground. 3. As per the office order dated 1.6.1996, the Corporation had decided for reimbursement of conveyance allowance for various categories of employees with effect from 1.4.1996 in respect of the vehicle owned and used by them in the interest of the Corporation. The petitioner having purchased a car on availing loan from the Corporation, he was entitled to get conveyance allowance of Rs.400/- per month as per Circular dated 1.6.1996. Though the same was sanctioned and paid to the officers, who were similarly placed, but the petitioner was denied the said benefit and against such refusal, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 2.6.1997, but he was intimated by letter dated 3.7.1997 that he was allotted with a Corporation jeep on full time basis which he was utilizing to attend office and local duties and if he wanted conveyance allowance he should surrender the jeep and use his own vehicle for attending the work as per the Corporation Rules entitling him the conveyance allowance as claimed. Hence, this application. 4. Mr.G.Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.A.K.Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the action of the opposite parties is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory one and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Mr.A.K.Panigrahi, learned counsel for the opposite parties, states that the petitioner was not allowed to cross E.B. because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding against him. So far as grant of leave is concerned, it is urged that the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria for sanction of commuted leave. More so, in view of Rule-26 of the OMC Employees Service Rules, 1976, in short, “Rules, 1976” crossing of E.B. in time scale would not be allowed unless specific sanction of the authority is granted. But as per the Rules, 1976, the leave period was sanctioned as earned leave instead of casual leave by the General Manager, I/C, Daitari, who is competent to sanction such leave. But as per the Rules, 1976, the leave period was sanctioned as earned leave instead of casual leave by the General Manager, I/C, Daitari, who is competent to sanction such leave. So far as payment of conveyance allowance is concerned, it is urged that since the petitioner was allotted with a Corporation Jeep on full time basis in order to perform his official duties, his case was not considered for grant of conveyance allowance. 6. Considering the above factual matrix available on record, and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner was to cross the EB at the stage of Rs.4000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/- w.e.f. 31.05.1995. Rule 26 of the Rules, 1976 states about crossing of efficiency bar, which reads as follows: “ 26 Cross of efficiency bar- Where an efficiency bar is prescribed in a time scale the increment next above bar shall not be given to an employee without the specific sanction of the authority in power to withhold increments.” 7. The petitioner was to cross EB in the scale of Rs.2900-4500/- w.e.f. 31.05.1995 but due to pendency of disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner w.e.f. 13.09.1994 for the irregularities committed during construction of civil work in Daitari, the authority could not consider the crossing of the EB at that stage, consequence thereof the annual increments payable to the petitioner as on 31.5.1995, 31.5.1996 and 31.5.1997 were not sanctioned in accordance with Rule 26 Rules, 1976. 8. After finalization of the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against the petitioner, the authorities allowed the petitioner to cross E.B. vide office order dated 5.1.1998 at the stage of Rs.4,000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/-w.e.f. 31.5.1996 without any cumulative effect though he was to cross EB w.e.f. 31.5.1995. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner has been finalized, no valid and justifiable reason has been indicated why the petitioner has been allowed to cross EB with effect from 31.5.1996 instead of 31.5.1995 at the stage of Rs.4,000/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2900-4500/-, which caused financial loss to the petitioner. No material has been placed before this Court justifying the action with regard to non-extension of the increments w.e.f. 31.5.1995 though the same was extended w.e.f. 31.5.1996. No material has been placed before this Court justifying the action with regard to non-extension of the increments w.e.f. 31.5.1995 though the same was extended w.e.f. 31.5.1996. In absence of any cogent reason to this effect, this Court is of the considered view that since the disciplinary proceeding has been finalized the benefit of crossing EB should have been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.05.1995 instead of 31.05.1996 and consequential benefits as due and admissible has to be extended to the petitioner in accordance with Rules. 10. Coming to the question of grant of leave to the petitioner for the period 17.10.1996 to 9.11.1996 as earned leave, it is admitted case that the petitioner had 215 days EL and 441 days half pay leave as on 31.3.1996 to his credit. As per Rules 12(a) and 13(d) of the Rules, 1976, the General Manager I/c., Daitary was the competent authority to sanction such leave in favour of the petitioner, but the competent authority did not sanction leave on the ground that the petitioner submitted the leave application on 16.10.1996 to avail the casual leave for a period of three days for 17.10.1996 to 19.10.1996 with camp off day on 20.10.1996 and headquarters leaving permission on the ground that he was suffering from dental disease and acute cold for which he needed consultation with the medicine specialist. Thereafter, he extended the leave from 21.10.1996 to 5.11.1996 for his sufferings, which was received in the office of the OMC Ltd., at Daitary on 22.10.1996, but he failed to submit medical certificate to the effect that he was unfit for duty along with above extension of leave application which is required under Rule 12(a) of the Rules, 1976. The petitioner extended leave from 6.11.1996 to 9.11.1996 assigning the same reason and identical ground. Therefore, the competent authority did not sanction leave as the leave application did not accompany any medical certificate to the effect that he was unfit for duty. But fact remains, there is availability of leave to his credit, which could have been allowed and on technical plea of non-submission of medical certificate along with application for leave, the authorities could not have refused to sanction leave. In view of such position, since EL is available to the credit of the petitioner, the competent authority should have allowed such EL as claimed by the petitioner. 11. In view of such position, since EL is available to the credit of the petitioner, the competent authority should have allowed such EL as claimed by the petitioner. 11. The last but not the least, with regard to payment of conveyance allowance, it is admitted fact that the petitioner was allotted with a jeep by the Corporation for his utilization. The claim for reimbursement of conveyance allowance was introduced by the OMC Management w.e.f. 1.4.1996 pursuant to office order No.13990 dated 1.6.1996 and that itself indicates that eligible employees would be granted the conveyance allowance on production of relevant documents like ownership, valid registration and driving licence verified by the sanctioning authority/ authorized officer. The employee, who draws conveyance allowance shall be bound to perform journey at his own cost for the official duty in the interest of the Corporation within a radius of one km. from his place of posting. The employees who are paid conveyance allowance will not be entitled to use the official vehicle for local journey or taxis for out-station journey and they should maintain their vehicle in good working order and use the official vehicle for official work also. The officers owning the vehicles, but not using them and depending upon OMC/ assisted company vehicles for local run and inspection are not eligible for grant of conveyance allowance. As the petitioner had been allotted with a corporation vehicle and he was utilizing the same for the purpose of corporation work, the claim made for grant of conveyance allowance has been rejected by the competent authority keeping in view the office order no.13990 dated 1.6.1996. This Court is of the considered opinion that even though the petitioner owned his personal vehicle that ipso facto would not entitle him to get conveyance allowance when admittedly he was allotted with a corporation vehicle for his use and no material has been placed before this Court indicating that the petitioner has surrendered the corporation vehicle and intended to use his own vehicle both for official and private purposes. In absence of any materials available on record, in this regard, the claim of conveyance allowance cannot be allowed in view of the circular dated 1.6.1996. 12. In absence of any materials available on record, in this regard, the claim of conveyance allowance cannot be allowed in view of the circular dated 1.6.1996. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court directs the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to cross EB w.e.f. 31.5.1995 instead of 31.5.1996 and grant leave for the period from 17.10.1996 to 9.11.1996 as earned leave towards the leave due to the credit of the petitioner in accordance with the Rules of the Corporation. So far as claim of conveyance allowance is concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant the same in view of the circular dated 1.6.1996. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed in part. No cost.