JUDGMENT : Petitioners are CISF personals presently posted at unit Cochin Fort Trust. They are residing with family in the quarters allotted to them at Wellington Island, Cochin. According to the petitioners, by virtue of the 5th Pay Commission recommendation, transport allowances were admissible to persons like petitioners, evidenced by Ext.P1. It was provided in para 3 (ii) of Ext.P1 that allowance shall not be admissible to those employees who were provided with Government accommodation within a distance of one kilometer of office or within a campus housing the place of work and residence. Pursuant to 6th Pay Commission recommendation, Ext.P2 office memorandum dated 29/8//2008 was issued, by the Ministry of Finance, by which it was provided that the transport allowance shall not be admissible to those employees who have been provided with the facility of Government transport. However, by clause 2 (iii), the condition contained in clause 3 (ii) of Ext.P1, by which the grant of transport allowance to employees provided with official accommodation within one kilometer of office or within a campus housing the place of work and residence was disallowed, was withdrawn. Thus by virtue of Ext.P2, though the official accommodation was provided within one kilometer from the office or within a campus housing the place of work and residence, they were entitled to the grant of transportation allowance. Essentially, by virtue of Ext.P2, irrespective of the distance of accommodation and its location, Central Govt. employees were eligible for transport allowance. Thereafter, pursuant to the 7th Central Pay commission report, Ext.P3 official memorandum was issued, by the Ministry, by which it was provided in clause 2 (i), that allowance shall not be admissible to those employees who have been provided with facility of Government transport. Except this, there was no other condition regarding the distance of accommodation or its location. The only embargo that was provided under Ext.P3 was that the employees would not be admissible for transport allowance, if they were provided with the facility of Government transport. 2. According to the petitioners, by virtue of their nature of employment, the CISF personnel posted at Cochin Port Trust were liable to proceed from their place of residence to the unit armoury and from where, they were moved in an armed transport to vantage points. 2. According to the petitioners, by virtue of their nature of employment, the CISF personnel posted at Cochin Port Trust were liable to proceed from their place of residence to the unit armoury and from where, they were moved in an armed transport to vantage points. Thus,to reach the unit armoury, which was the debriefing station and the place of reporting, the petitioners were bound to arrange their own mode of transport. From the unit armory to their duty place, they were provided with an armed troop carrier bus. After the duty hours, they were taken back from the duty post to the unit armoury in an armed troop carrier bus and from there they proceeded in their own private vehicles to their places of residence. In short, by virtue of the location of the unit armory, which was at a distance from their place of residence, they had to make arrangements for their own transportation from the places of residence to the unit armory before commencement of the duty and after the duty hours, to return from the unit armory to their place of residence. Accordingly, they were not provided with Government transportation facility, through out their journey in connection with their duty. 3. Ext.P4 clarification was issued by the 2nd respondent, the Inspector General(Sourth Zone), Chennai, which is produced as Ex.P4. It provided that the managements of CPT, Cochin and MRPL Mangalore have provided transport facilitates to CISF personnel for commuting to their place of duty from residence(Assembling points(s) at unit line) and vice versa. It was stated that,thus they were not entitled for transport allowance. 4. The writ petitions are filed by the petitioners on the premise that in the light of Ext.P4 clarification, the authorities have stopped the payment of transport allowance to them. The relief sought was to declare that the petitioners posted at CISF Unit of Cochin Port Trust, who were not provided with individual government vehicles to take them from their place of residences to their work station, were eligible for transportation allowance as per Exts.P2 and P3 office memorandums and consequential pay arrears. Another prayer sought was to quash Ext.P4, by which transport allowance was stopped to the petitioners and similarly situated persons, posted at CISF unit, CPT Cochin. 5. Pursuant to the notice, the respondents appeared through the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. Another prayer sought was to quash Ext.P4, by which transport allowance was stopped to the petitioners and similarly situated persons, posted at CISF unit, CPT Cochin. 5. Pursuant to the notice, the respondents appeared through the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned ASG. 6. Vehemently assailing the impugned order Ext.P4, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, Ext.P4 is factually wrong, in so far as it provides that CISF personnel were provided with transport facilities for commuting to their place of duty from residence and vice versa. It was contended that, they are entitled for transport allowance. Per contra, supporting Ext.P4, learned ASG contended that Ext.P4 was clear, unequivocal and was beyond any dispute. It was a fact that the petitioners were provided with official transport from the assembling point at the unit line and to their place of duty. 7. By virtue of Ext.P3, transport allowance was made admissible to all, except to the employees who have been provided with the facilities of the Government transportation. Evidently, the persons who are not entitled to transport allowance are persons who have been provided with facility of Government transport from their place of residence to the place of duty. Factually, petitioners are residing at official quarters and, it is a facility provided to them, as part of their employment, since all of them hail from distance places. Hence, they are occupying the official accommodation by virtue of their employment. By the peculiar nature of the fact that the place of their reporting, which is the assembling point is located at distance from their respective places of residences, they are obliged to cover that distance using own arrangement. Official vehicles are admittedly provided from the assembling point to the place of duty and vice versa only. This is factually evident from Ext.P9 which was produced by the petitioners in W.P.(C) 16755/2021. Ext.P9 is a communication dated 10/3/2021 issued by the 5th respondent – the Deputy Commandant stationed at Cochin, to his superior officer, the Group Commandant, CISF, seeking a clarification on the letter of Cochin Port Trust regarding the alleged ambiguity in the transportation allowance. This is factually evident from Ext.P9 which was produced by the petitioners in W.P.(C) 16755/2021. Ext.P9 is a communication dated 10/3/2021 issued by the 5th respondent – the Deputy Commandant stationed at Cochin, to his superior officer, the Group Commandant, CISF, seeking a clarification on the letter of Cochin Port Trust regarding the alleged ambiguity in the transportation allowance. It was stated in para 2 of Ext.P9 that, at present Cochin Port Trust management has provided transport facility from the briefing point ( quarter guard) to the duty points and back (debriefing point at quarter guard) and all the unit personnel are reporting at the briefing point by own conveyance or arrangements. However, in Ext.P4, the place of residence referred to in Ext.P4, is denoted as assembling point, as if the place of residence of the petitioners are the assembling point itself. This is factually incorrect as evident from Ext.P9. In other words, the clarification given by Ext.P4 is on a wrong factual premise that the place of residence and the assembling points at the unit line, are at the same place, ignoring the fact that at least in the case of the petitioners and similarly situated persons posted at Cochin Port Trust, they are obliged to commute from their respective place of residences to the assembling point in their own vehicles. Clearly they have not been provided with transport facility towards their movement for reporting for duty, at the duty point and for their return. Merely because they are provided with Government transport facility to cover a part of their journey, they cannot be deprived of their transport allowance, and cannot be expected to expend from their own pocket for commuting from the respective places of residence to the assembling points. The transportation of that portion of the route is necessitated, since the assembling point is located at a distance from their official residence. Their transportation from the place of residence to the assembling point and back can only be for the purpose of attending their official duty, at the duty post. Having considered this, they cannot be deprived of their right on the basis that they have been provided with transportation facility to cover a part of the route. Denial of such a right will be totally contrary to the very object of providing the transport allowance. 8. Having considered this, they cannot be deprived of their right on the basis that they have been provided with transportation facility to cover a part of the route. Denial of such a right will be totally contrary to the very object of providing the transport allowance. 8. Having considered this, I am satisfied that Ext.P4 cannot be extended at least in the case of the petitioners and similarly situated persons posted at Cochin Port Trust or elsewhere. To that extent, relief No. 1 sought by the petitioners is liable to be granted. 9. The second relief sought is to quash Ext.P4. Since Ext.P4 covers the employees posted at MRPL Mangalore also and that part is not under challenge, I am not inclined to quash Ext.P4 in its entity, nor I inclined to quash it in part since it is inseparable, composite clarification. However, the interest of justice will suffice if the prayer No. 1 in the writ petitions is allowed by declaring that the petitioners who are obliged to utilise their own arrangement from the official quarters to the assembling point and back after the duty hours are entitled to the transport allowance as provided in Exts.P2 and P3 official memorandums issued by the Ministry of Finance. 10. The writ petitions are liable to be allowed granting transport allowance by virtue of Exts. P2 & P3 to the petitioners. The respondents shall disburse the arrears of transport allowance due to the petitioners. as expeditiously as possible. at any rate. within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondents shall also pay and continue to pay the transport allowance by virtue of Exts.P2 and P3, not withstanding Ext.P4. Writ petitions are allowed accordingly.