JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Instant petition has been preferred for directing respondents to release retirement (Travelling Allowance) claim and Transportation Charges of personal effects, claimed by the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 28.11.2003 when petitioner had submitted his claim for the first time till finalization of the matter. 2. Undisputed facts, in present case, are that petitioner was employee of respondent No.1 i.e. Department of Atomic Energy and was deputed with respondent No.2 Nuclear Corporation of India and respondent No.3 Site Executive Director Rajasthan Atomic Power Station and after his retirement as a foreman-B on 31.03.2002 from Rajasthan, where he was lastly posted, and served under respondent No.3, he is receiving pension from respondent No.1. Entitlement of the petitioner, on his retirement, for the claimed allowances, is also not in dispute. It is also admitted fact that after his retirement on 31.03.2002, petitioner has submitted claim on 28.11.2003 by post for Travelling Allowance and Transportation Charges for personal effects with regard to his journey from Jaipur to his native village Batari, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., completed on 02.12.2002. 3. Entitlement of the petitioner for aforesaid claims has also not been disputed. However, his claim has been rejected as time barred on the ground that these concessions should have been availed within one year of the retirement, whereas, petitioner has retired on 31.03.2002 and shifted his family and personal effects on 30.11.2002 and submitted the claim on 28.11.2003, after a period of eight months, beyond expiry of one year after his retirement, as is evident from communication dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure A-3). 4. At the time of submission of claim vide communication dated 28.11.2003 (Annexure A-1), petitioner had stated therein that due to severe climate of hills he was ill and was suffering from fever and the Physician had diagnosed that he was suffering from Typhoid and was under his treatment even on the date of submitting the claim i.e. 28.11.2003. 5. In response to his averments regarding his ailment, vide letter dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure A-3), petitioner was informed that his claim was also not acceptable, on the ground of delay and it was also communicated that he may furnish medical certificate as he was undergoing medical treatment. 5. In response to his averments regarding his ailment, vide letter dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure A-3), petitioner was informed that his claim was also not acceptable, on the ground of delay and it was also communicated that he may furnish medical certificate as he was undergoing medical treatment. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure A-4), petitioner had submitted two medical certificates (Annexures A-5 and A-6) respectively for the period 01.03.2003 to 30.06.2003 and 01.07.2003 to 29.11.2003 issued by the registered medical practitioners. As per these medical certificates, petitioner was suffering from infective hepatitis IGW from 01.03.2003 to 30.06.2003 and from similar disease from 01.07.2003 to 29.11.2003. 6. On receiving no response from the respondents, petitioner had submitted reminders dated 27.10.2008 and 21.04.2009 (Annexures A-7 and A-8) to respondent No.3, whereupon vide letter dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure A-9) referring representation dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure A-4), it was informed to the petitioner that his case had been forwarded to Corporate Office for approval as claim submitted by him was too delayed. Thereafter, vide letter dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure A-10) petitioner was informed about the decision, received from Corporate Office, vide letter dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure A-11) whereby it was informed that request for condonation of delay in submission of retirement Travelling Allowance claim, could be acceded. 7. On 19.01.2010 petitioner had submitted Mercy Appeal for payment of his claim, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure A-12, wherein it is stated that after his superannuation, petitioner had met with a serious and fatal accident causing serious injuries in his leg and right hand, proof whereof was submitted by him alongwith various applications and it took very long time for his recovery and his right hand was not working properly even on the date of submitting Mercy Appeal, which substantiates his claim of accident and further he had suffered heavy losses due to fatal accident and for these reasons a prayer was made by him to the Chairman of the Corporation to condone the delay in submission of his claim as submitted by him on humanitarian ground. 8. Lastly on 19.07.2009, petitioner had served a legal notice (Annexure A-13) through an Advocate upon the Chairman of respondent No.2 to settle his claim for Allowances and to remit the bill amount in his account within two months from the date of receipt of notice. 9. 8. Lastly on 19.07.2009, petitioner had served a legal notice (Annexure A-13) through an Advocate upon the Chairman of respondent No.2 to settle his claim for Allowances and to remit the bill amount in his account within two months from the date of receipt of notice. 9. Responding to legal notice, vide communication dated 02.09.2010 (Annexure A-14), after informing that services of petitioner were governed by CCS Rules, it was communicated that claim by the petitioner was not preferred to the Head Office or Controlling Officer within one year from the date on which it became due as provided in Supplementary Rules 194-A (hereinafter referred to as S.R. 194-A). It is also pointed out in this response that at the time of submitting his claim vide letter dated 28.11.2003 (Annexure A-1) petitioner had disclosed that he was suffering from fever and subsequently in support of the said plea, he, alongwith letter dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure A-8) he had submitted medical certificates about suffering from infective hepatitis, whereas, in communication dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure A-12) petitioner, explaining reasons for delay, had narrated that he could not submit the claim within time on account of serious and fatal accident causing serious injuries in his leg and right hand. 10. In the year 2011, petitioner had filed an Original Application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short 'CAT') which was withdrawn for filing present writ petition as jurisdiction of the CAT was not extended to the service matters related to respondents No.2 and 3. Thereafter present petition has been preferred. 11. By filing reply petition has been opposed on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as respondent No.3 was working with respondent No.1 and superannuated from Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Rawatbhata, Rajasthan Site a Unit of respondent No.2, situated at Town Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh in the State of Rajasthan and that petition suffers from delay and laches being filed with an inordinate and unexplained delay of about more than ten years. 12. It is also stated in the reply of respondents that after expiry of one year from the date of retirement of the Government servant in view of provisions for S.R. 194-A, claim for Travelling Allowances is deemed to have been relinquished and forfeited. 12. It is also stated in the reply of respondents that after expiry of one year from the date of retirement of the Government servant in view of provisions for S.R. 194-A, claim for Travelling Allowances is deemed to have been relinquished and forfeited. Discrepancies in plea taken by petitioner to explain the cause for delayed submission of claim, have also been pointed out in the reply filed by the respondents. 13. It is also contended in the reply that for claiming Travelling Allowance and Transportation Charges of personal effects Sub-Clause (iii) of Sub Rule 2 of S.R. 147 are relevant which provides submission of such claim within one year from the date of retirement and thus, claim for these Allowances should have been submitted on or before 28.02.2003 and after that date, in view of provision of S.R. 194-A, right of the petitioner for these Allowances stands forfeited. 14. Petitioner after retirement from Rajasthan has shifted to his native place situated in Himachal Pradesh and claim of his Travelling Allowances and Transportation Charges for personal effects pertains to his journey and transportation from Rajasthan to his native place situated in District Shimla and claim for which was also submitted therefrom as the claim also involves the Allowances for journey and transportation in the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, cause of action, in particular, arises for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the State of Himachal Pradesh and thus, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition. 15. Plea of delay and laches is also rejected for the reason that petitioner was in continuous touch of respondent No.3 and was submitting his representations and reminders to respondent No.3, which were though belatedly, but were being responded by respondent No.3 till September 2010. Immediately thereafter, original application was preferred before CAT in the year 2011 and after withdrawing the same, present petition has been filed in the year 2012. Therefore, I am not in agreement with respondents on this issue. 16. Plea of respondents, regarding applicability of S.R. 147 in present case, is misconceived, as S.R. 147 is an exception to SR 146, which is not applicable in present case. S.R. 146, in Section XV of Supplementary Rules deals with journey on retirement, dismissal or termination of employment and journey by the family of the Government servant on his death etc. Plea of respondents, regarding applicability of S.R. 147 in present case, is misconceived, as S.R. 147 is an exception to SR 146, which is not applicable in present case. S.R. 146, in Section XV of Supplementary Rules deals with journey on retirement, dismissal or termination of employment and journey by the family of the Government servant on his death etc. S.R. 146 provides that no person is entitled for any Travelling Allowance for a journey made after retirement or dismissal from the Government service or after the termination of such service, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in this Section i.e. Section XV of Supplementary Rules. S.R. 147 provides that competent authority may, for recorded special reasons, permit any Government servant to draw Travelling Allowance for a journey prohibited in S.R. 146. Present case is not covered under Section XV of Supplementary Rules. In present case, it is an admitted fact that petitioner was entitled for Travelling Allowance as well as Transportation Charges for his personal effects after his retirement for which requirement of permission of competent authority, as envisaged under S.R. 147, is not applicable. 17. Vide G.I., F.D., letter No.51-E.B., dated 18.01.1915, as referred in Swamy's Compilation of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, Part-II, Edition-2013, time limit for transport of personal effects has been provided by notifying that charges for the transport of personal effects of an officer on transfer may be admitted in audit if they do not, for good and sufficient reasons, accompany him but are carried within reasonable time before or after the date of his journey on transfer and vide G.I., M.F., O.M. No.F. 5 (6)-E.IV/55(II) dated 04.02.1955. The expression 'for good and sufficient reasons accompany him but are carried within reasonable time' used in the decision dated 18.01.1915, has been left to be interpreted by Audit Offices with rider that Ministry of Home Affairs etc. will have full power to deal with any case of doubt referred to them by the Audit Offices or any authority under their administrative control. In present case, it is not the case of respondents that petitioner had transported his personal effects, beyond reasonable time, rather admissibility of his claim has not been denied, but his claim has been rejected being time barred in view of provision of S.R. 194-A. 18. In present case, it is not the case of respondents that petitioner had transported his personal effects, beyond reasonable time, rather admissibility of his claim has not been denied, but his claim has been rejected being time barred in view of provision of S.R. 194-A. 18. S.R. 194-A provides that right of a Government servant to Travelling Allowance, including Daily Allowance is forfeited or deemed to have been relinquished if the claim for it is not preferred within one year from the date on which it became due. In present case, as is evident from claim submitted by the petitioner, which has been placed on record as Annexure R-2 with reply, he has submitted claim of a sum of Rs. 19020/- for transporting personal effects and a sum of Rs. 8660/- for Travelling Allowance. S.R. 194-A deals with Travelling Allowance including Daily Allowance but not charges to transport personal effects. No provision has been pointed out by the respondents, providing limitation of one year for claiming charges for transport of personal effects. Decision dated 18.01.1915 referred supra provided that personal effects can be transported within reasonable time before or after the journey of the employee. Therefore, as there is no specific limitation period provided for transporting personal effects and claiming charges for transport of personal effects. Limitation of one year is not applicable for claim of charges on account of transport of personal effects. 19. In case this limitation is considered to be applicable to charges for transporting personal effects, then also it would become due on the date of completion of transportation and making payment therefor. Thus claim for an Allowance cannot be treated as due before it is incurred by the employee by making payment or performing journey and transportation. 20. Limitation of one year provided in S.R. 194-A from the date on which Allowance became due. Admittedly in present case, journey was completed on 02.12.2002. Therefore, time as provided under S.R. 194-A for putting claim for Travelling Allowance was up to 02.12.2002, whereas, it is also admitted fact that petitioner has submitted his claim on 28.11.2003 through a registered post i.e. five days prior to expiry of one year. 21. Admittedly in present case, journey was completed on 02.12.2002. Therefore, time as provided under S.R. 194-A for putting claim for Travelling Allowance was up to 02.12.2002, whereas, it is also admitted fact that petitioner has submitted his claim on 28.11.2003 through a registered post i.e. five days prior to expiry of one year. 21. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act,1897 describes meaning of service by post, wherein it is proved that unless a different intention appears, the service by post shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time of at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Jaipur being Capital of Rajasthan is a prominent city having direct connectivity with almost all major cities in India. Even if, it is considered that three days were consumed for reaching the letter up to Delhi and that it was further transmitted from Delhi only on 30.11.2003, it would have been delivered, in ordinary course of post, at Jaipur on 01.12.2003, and the said date was within one year from the date when Allowance had become due. It is claimed on behalf of the respondents that the letter was received in the office of respondent No.3 on 15.12.2003. The claim is based upon stamp of diarizing the letter in the said office. It has not been proved on record that the letters in the office of respondent No.3 were being diarized on the same date when received from the Postman. Even if, it is considered that it was received on 15.12.2003, as discussed supra, claim with respect to Travelling Allowance only i.e. Rs. 8660/- has become inadmissible under provision of S.R. 194-A, but for the claim of Transportation Charges to transport personal effects i.e. for Rs. 19020/- S.R. 194-A would not be applicable. It should be claimed within reasonable time and if, one year time provided in S.R. 194-A is taken as a reasonable time, then claim posted before expiry of one year and received a few days after expiry of one year should be considered to have been preferred within reasonable time. 22. It has also come on record that petitioner has failed to furnish travelling tickets for his journey from Jaipur to his native Village Batari for Rs. 22. It has also come on record that petitioner has failed to furnish travelling tickets for his journey from Jaipur to his native Village Batari for Rs. 8660/- which was to be submitted within one year as stipulated in S.R. 194-A and also for delay in submission of the said claim, he has rendered explanation sating that delay was on account of ailment but in one communication he has claimed fever and typhoid etc. but in another he has also claimed injuries in a serious accident which indicates that cause of delay, as claimed, is not true and therefore, no ground is there for extension of time for submission of claim with respect to Travelling Allowance and thus petitioner is not entitled for Rs. 8660/- being time barred under S.R. 194-A regarding which there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay or extension of time. However, as discussed supra, no such specific time provided under any Rule regarding charges of Transportation of personal effects, has been pointed out and considering the time of about one year as a reasonable time for claiming the said charges, petitioner is entitled for Transport Charges for transporting his personal effects as the claim has been submitted within one year and even if it is considered that it was received on 15.12.2003 only, it cannot be treated as time barred for want of specific provision barring submission of such claim after one year. 23. Petitioner has claimed an interest @ 18% per annum on the amount payable to him w.e.f. 28.11.2003. Firstly, interest will not accrue from the date of submission of the claim, but after expiry of reasonable time taken for settling the claim, and it is also a hard reality that petitioner had knocked the door of CAT only in the year 2011 and has filed this petition in this Court in the year 2012. Further, in the year 2003 or at the time of filing petition, rate of interest was not so high as claimed. Presently, rate of interests are ranging from 4% to 7.5% per annum and also six months' time would be reasonable time to settle the claim, therefore, maintaining balance it would be appropriate to award interest @ 6% per annum from 15.06.2004 i.e. after expiry of six months from receipt of claim of the petitioner. 24. Presently, rate of interests are ranging from 4% to 7.5% per annum and also six months' time would be reasonable time to settle the claim, therefore, maintaining balance it would be appropriate to award interest @ 6% per annum from 15.06.2004 i.e. after expiry of six months from receipt of claim of the petitioner. 24. In view of the above discussion, petition is partly allowed and claim of the petitioner qua a sum of Rs. 8660/- for Travelling Allowance is rejected, whereas, his claim qua a sum of Rs. 19020/- for Transportation Charges of personal effects is accepted and accordingly, respondents especially respondent No.3 is directed to reimburse an amount of Rs. 19020/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 15.03.2004 till full and final payment thereof. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. Instant petition has been preferred for directing respondents to release retirement (Travelling Allowance) claim and Transportation Charges of personal effects, claimed by the petitioner alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 28.11.2003 when petitioner had submitted his claim for the first time till finalization of the matter. 2. Undisputed facts, in present case, are that petitioner was employee of respondent No.1 i.e. Department of Atomic Energy and was deputed with respondent No.2 Nuclear Corporation of India and respondent No.3 Site Executive Director Rajasthan Atomic Power Station and after his retirement as a foreman-B on 31.03.2002 from Rajasthan, where he was lastly posted, and served under respondent No.3, he is receiving pension from respondent No.1. Entitlement of the petitioner, on his retirement, for the claimed allowances, is also not in dispute. It is also admitted fact that after his retirement on 31.03.2002, petitioner has submitted claim on 28.11.2003 by post for Travelling Allowance and Transportation Charges for personal effects with regard to his journey from Jaipur to his native village Batari, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P., completed on 02.12.2002. 3. Entitlement of the petitioner for aforesaid claims has also not been disputed. 3. Entitlement of the petitioner for aforesaid claims has also not been disputed. However, his claim has been rejected as time barred on the ground that these concessions should have been availed within one year of the retirement, whereas, petitioner has retired on 31.03.2002 and shifted his family and personal effects on 30.11.2002 and submitted the claim on 28.11.2003, after a period of eight months, beyond expiry of one year after his retirement, as is evident from communication dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure A-3). 4. At the time of submission of claim vide communication dated 28.11.2003 (Annexure A-1), petitioner had stated therein that due to severe climate of hills he was ill and was suffering from fever and the Physician had diagnosed that he was suffering from Typhoid and was under his treatment even on the date of submitting the claim i.e. 28.11.2003. 5. In response to his averments regarding his ailment, vide letter dated 02.01.2004 (Annexure A-3), petitioner was informed that his claim was also not acceptable, on the ground of delay and it was also communicated that he may furnish medical certificate as he was undergoing medical treatment. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure A-4), petitioner had submitted two medical certificates (Annexures A-5 and A-6) respectively for the period 01.03.2003 to 30.06.2003 and 01.07.2003 to 29.11.2003 issued by the registered medical practitioners. As per these medical certificates, petitioner was suffering from infective hepatitis IGW from 01.03.2003 to 30.06.2003 and from similar disease from 01.07.2003 to 29.11.2003. 6. On receiving no response from the respondents, petitioner had submitted reminders dated 27.10.2008 and 21.04.2009 (Annexures A-7 and A-8) to respondent No.3, whereupon vide letter dated 20.05.2009 (Annexure A-9) referring representation dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure A-4), it was informed to the petitioner that his case had been forwarded to Corporate Office for approval as claim submitted by him was too delayed. Thereafter, vide letter dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure A-10) petitioner was informed about the decision, received from Corporate Office, vide letter dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure A-11) whereby it was informed that request for condonation of delay in submission of retirement Travelling Allowance claim, could be acceded. 7. Thereafter, vide letter dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure A-10) petitioner was informed about the decision, received from Corporate Office, vide letter dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure A-11) whereby it was informed that request for condonation of delay in submission of retirement Travelling Allowance claim, could be acceded. 7. On 19.01.2010 petitioner had submitted Mercy Appeal for payment of his claim, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure A-12, wherein it is stated that after his superannuation, petitioner had met with a serious and fatal accident causing serious injuries in his leg and right hand, proof whereof was submitted by him alongwith various applications and it took very long time for his recovery and his right hand was not working properly even on the date of submitting Mercy Appeal, which substantiates his claim of accident and further he had suffered heavy losses due to fatal accident and for these reasons a prayer was made by him to the Chairman of the Corporation to condone the delay in submission of his claim as submitted by him on humanitarian ground. 8. Lastly on 19.07.2009, petitioner had served a legal notice (Annexure A-13) through an Advocate upon the Chairman of respondent No.2 to settle his claim for Allowances and to remit the bill amount in his account within two months from the date of receipt of notice. 9. Responding to legal notice, vide communication dated 02.09.2010 (Annexure A-14), after informing that services of petitioner were governed by CCS Rules, it was communicated that claim by the petitioner was not preferred to the Head Office or Controlling Officer within one year from the date on which it became due as provided in Supplementary Rules 194-A (hereinafter referred to as S.R. 194-A). It is also pointed out in this response that at the time of submitting his claim vide letter dated 28.11.2003 (Annexure A-1) petitioner had disclosed that he was suffering from fever and subsequently in support of the said plea, he, alongwith letter dated 23.06.2008 (Annexure A-8) he had submitted medical certificates about suffering from infective hepatitis, whereas, in communication dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure A-12) petitioner, explaining reasons for delay, had narrated that he could not submit the claim within time on account of serious and fatal accident causing serious injuries in his leg and right hand. 10. 10. In the year 2011, petitioner had filed an Original Application before Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (in short 'CAT') which was withdrawn for filing present writ petition as jurisdiction of the CAT was not extended to the service matters related to respondents No.2 and 3. Thereafter present petition has been preferred. 11. By filing reply petition has been opposed on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as respondent No.3 was working with respondent No.1 and superannuated from Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Rawatbhata, Rajasthan Site a Unit of respondent No.2, situated at Town Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh in the State of Rajasthan and that petition suffers from delay and laches being filed with an inordinate and unexplained delay of about more than ten years. 12. It is also stated in the reply of respondents that after expiry of one year from the date of retirement of the Government servant in view of provisions for S.R. 194-A, claim for Travelling Allowances is deemed to have been relinquished and forfeited. Discrepancies in plea taken by petitioner to explain the cause for delayed submission of claim, have also been pointed out in the reply filed by the respondents. 13. It is also contended in the reply that for claiming Travelling Allowance and Transportation Charges of personal effects Sub-Clause (iii) of Sub Rule 2 of S.R. 147 are relevant which provides submission of such claim within one year from the date of retirement and thus, claim for these Allowances should have been submitted on or before 28.02.2003 and after that date, in view of provision of S.R. 194-A, right of the petitioner for these Allowances stands forfeited. 14. Petitioner after retirement from Rajasthan has shifted to his native place situated in Himachal Pradesh and claim of his Travelling Allowances and Transportation Charges for personal effects pertains to his journey and transportation from Rajasthan to his native place situated in District Shimla and claim for which was also submitted therefrom as the claim also involves the Allowances for journey and transportation in the State of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, cause of action, in particular, arises for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the State of Himachal Pradesh and thus, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the petition. 15. 15. Plea of delay and laches is also rejected for the reason that petitioner was in continuous touch of respondent No.3 and was submitting his representations and reminders to respondent No.3, which were though belatedly, but were being responded by respondent No.3 till September 2010. Immediately thereafter, original application was preferred before CAT in the year 2011 and after withdrawing the same, present petition has been filed in the year 2012. Therefore, I am not in agreement with respondents on this issue. 16. Plea of respondents, regarding applicability of S.R. 147 in present case, is misconceived, as S.R. 147 is an exception to SR 146, which is not applicable in present case. S.R. 146, in Section XV of Supplementary Rules deals with journey on retirement, dismissal or termination of employment and journey by the family of the Government servant on his death etc. S.R. 146 provides that no person is entitled for any Travelling Allowance for a journey made after retirement or dismissal from the Government service or after the termination of such service, unless it is otherwise expressly provided in this Section i.e. Section XV of Supplementary Rules. S.R. 147 provides that competent authority may, for recorded special reasons, permit any Government servant to draw Travelling Allowance for a journey prohibited in S.R. 146. Present case is not covered under Section XV of Supplementary Rules. In present case, it is an admitted fact that petitioner was entitled for Travelling Allowance as well as Transportation Charges for his personal effects after his retirement for which requirement of permission of competent authority, as envisaged under S.R. 147, is not applicable. 17. Vide G.I., F.D., letter No.51-E.B., dated 18.01.1915, as referred in Swamy's Compilation of the Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules, Part-II, Edition-2013, time limit for transport of personal effects has been provided by notifying that charges for the transport of personal effects of an officer on transfer may be admitted in audit if they do not, for good and sufficient reasons, accompany him but are carried within reasonable time before or after the date of his journey on transfer and vide G.I., M.F., O.M. No.F. 5 (6)-E.IV/55(II) dated 04.02.1955. The expression 'for good and sufficient reasons accompany him but are carried within reasonable time' used in the decision dated 18.01.1915, has been left to be interpreted by Audit Offices with rider that Ministry of Home Affairs etc. The expression 'for good and sufficient reasons accompany him but are carried within reasonable time' used in the decision dated 18.01.1915, has been left to be interpreted by Audit Offices with rider that Ministry of Home Affairs etc. will have full power to deal with any case of doubt referred to them by the Audit Offices or any authority under their administrative control. In present case, it is not the case of respondents that petitioner had transported his personal effects, beyond reasonable time, rather admissibility of his claim has not been denied, but his claim has been rejected being time barred in view of provision of S.R. 194-A. 18. S.R. 194-A provides that right of a Government servant to Travelling Allowance, including Daily Allowance is forfeited or deemed to have been relinquished if the claim for it is not preferred within one year from the date on which it became due. In present case, as is evident from claim submitted by the petitioner, which has been placed on record as Annexure R-2 with reply, he has submitted claim of a sum of Rs. 19020/- for transporting personal effects and a sum of Rs. 8660/- for Travelling Allowance. S.R. 194-A deals with Travelling Allowance including Daily Allowance but not charges to transport personal effects. No provision has been pointed out by the respondents, providing limitation of one year for claiming charges for transport of personal effects. Decision dated 18.01.1915 referred supra provided that personal effects can be transported within reasonable time before or after the journey of the employee. Therefore, as there is no specific limitation period provided for transporting personal effects and claiming charges for transport of personal effects. Limitation of one year is not applicable for claim of charges on account of transport of personal effects. 19. In case this limitation is considered to be applicable to charges for transporting personal effects, then also it would become due on the date of completion of transportation and making payment therefor. Thus claim for an Allowance cannot be treated as due before it is incurred by the employee by making payment or performing journey and transportation. 20. Limitation of one year provided in S.R. 194-A from the date on which Allowance became due. Admittedly in present case, journey was completed on 02.12.2002. Thus claim for an Allowance cannot be treated as due before it is incurred by the employee by making payment or performing journey and transportation. 20. Limitation of one year provided in S.R. 194-A from the date on which Allowance became due. Admittedly in present case, journey was completed on 02.12.2002. Therefore, time as provided under S.R. 194-A for putting claim for Travelling Allowance was up to 02.12.2002, whereas, it is also admitted fact that petitioner has submitted his claim on 28.11.2003 through a registered post i.e. five days prior to expiry of one year. 21. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act,1897 describes meaning of service by post, wherein it is proved that unless a different intention appears, the service by post shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time of at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Jaipur being Capital of Rajasthan is a prominent city having direct connectivity with almost all major cities in India. Even if, it is considered that three days were consumed for reaching the letter up to Delhi and that it was further transmitted from Delhi only on 30.11.2003, it would have been delivered, in ordinary course of post, at Jaipur on 01.12.2003, and the said date was within one year from the date when Allowance had become due. It is claimed on behalf of the respondents that the letter was received in the office of respondent No.3 on 15.12.2003. The claim is based upon stamp of diarizing the letter in the said office. It has not been proved on record that the letters in the office of respondent No.3 were being diarized on the same date when received from the Postman. Even if, it is considered that it was received on 15.12.2003, as discussed supra, claim with respect to Travelling Allowance only i.e. Rs. 8660/- has become inadmissible under provision of S.R. 194-A, but for the claim of Transportation Charges to transport personal effects i.e. for Rs. 19020/- S.R. 194-A would not be applicable. Even if, it is considered that it was received on 15.12.2003, as discussed supra, claim with respect to Travelling Allowance only i.e. Rs. 8660/- has become inadmissible under provision of S.R. 194-A, but for the claim of Transportation Charges to transport personal effects i.e. for Rs. 19020/- S.R. 194-A would not be applicable. It should be claimed within reasonable time and if, one year time provided in S.R. 194-A is taken as a reasonable time, then claim posted before expiry of one year and received a few days after expiry of one year should be considered to have been preferred within reasonable time. 22. It has also come on record that petitioner has failed to furnish travelling tickets for his journey from Jaipur to his native Village Batari for Rs. 8660/- which was to be submitted within one year as stipulated in S.R. 194-A and also for delay in submission of the said claim, he has rendered explanation sating that delay was on account of ailment but in one communication he has claimed fever and typhoid etc. but in another he has also claimed injuries in a serious accident which indicates that cause of delay, as claimed, is not true and therefore, no ground is there for extension of time for submission of claim with respect to Travelling Allowance and thus petitioner is not entitled for Rs. 8660/- being time barred under S.R. 194-A regarding which there is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay or extension of time. However, as discussed supra, no such specific time provided under any Rule regarding charges of Transportation of personal effects, has been pointed out and considering the time of about one year as a reasonable time for claiming the said charges, petitioner is entitled for Transport Charges for transporting his personal effects as the claim has been submitted within one year and even if it is considered that it was received on 15.12.2003 only, it cannot be treated as time barred for want of specific provision barring submission of such claim after one year. 23. Petitioner has claimed an interest @ 18% per annum on the amount payable to him w.e.f. 28.11.2003. 23. Petitioner has claimed an interest @ 18% per annum on the amount payable to him w.e.f. 28.11.2003. Firstly, interest will not accrue from the date of submission of the claim, but after expiry of reasonable time taken for settling the claim, and it is also a hard reality that petitioner had knocked the door of CAT only in the year 2011 and has filed this petition in this Court in the year 2012. Further, in the year 2003 or at the time of filing petition, rate of interest was not so high as claimed. Presently, rate of interests are ranging from 4% to 7.5% per annum and also six months' time would be reasonable time to settle the claim, therefore, maintaining balance it would be appropriate to award interest @ 6% per annum from 15.06.2004 i.e. after expiry of six months from receipt of claim of the petitioner. 24. In view of the above discussion, petition is partly allowed and claim of the petitioner qua a sum of Rs. 8660/- for Travelling Allowance is rejected, whereas, his claim qua a sum of Rs. 19020/- for Transportation Charges of personal effects is accepted and accordingly, respondents especially respondent No.3 is directed to reimburse an amount of Rs. 19020/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum w.e.f. 15.03.2004 till full and final payment thereof. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.