wps2334.00&3453.00
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.2334 of 2000
And
Writ Petition No.3453 of 2000
A. Writ Petition No. 2334 of 2000 :
1. The Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
10-A, Auckland Road,
Calcutta.
2. The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
Department of Defence,
Production & Supplies,
New Delhi. ..... Petitioners.
Versus
Shri S. P. Yadav,
Ex-Joint Director,
Ordnance Factories Staff College,
Nagpur-21,
now Joint General Manager,
Ordnance Factory Project,
Medak [Yeddu Malairam]
Pin Code 502 205. .... Respondent.
*****
Mr. J. S. Mokadam, Adv., for the petitioners.
None for the respondent.
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2017 00:16:19 :::
wps2334.00&3453.00
2
*****
B. Writ Petition No. 3453 of 2000 :
Sunil Kumar,
formerly Joint Director,
Ordnance Factory Staff College,
Nagpur, presently Joint
General Manager,
Bungalow No. 25, Type-V,
Sector-I, Vehicle Factory
Estate, Jabalpur-9.
....Org. Applicant. ..... Petitioner.
Versus
1. Secretary to the Govt. of
India,
Ministry of Defence,
Finance Division,
New Delhi.
2. Chairman,
Ordnance Factory Board,
DDG/HRD, 10A-Auckland Road,
Calcutta-1.
....Org. Respondents. .... Respondents.
*****
None for the petitioner.
Mr. J. S. Mokadam, Adv., for the respondents.
*****
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2017 00:16:19 :::
wps2334.00&3453.00
3
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND
A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
Date : 25th April, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. R. Gavai, J.]:
01. These two cross-petitions challenge the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 23rd June, 1999. The Original Application No. 133 of 1995 came to be filed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3453 of 2000, who was working as Deputy General Manager, Heavy Vehicles Factory, Avadi. He came to be deputed to SHRIVENHAM ENGLAND, United Kingdom, to undergo training in MSc, Military Vehicle Technology at the Royal Military College of Science under UKMATAS during the period from 7th January, 1993 to 17th December, 1993. The terms and conditions to that effect are stipulated in the letter dated 14th December, 1992, issued by the Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production & Supplies. The Original Applicant had requested to amend the terms and conditions so as to provide him Daily Allowance at the rate of twenty- five per cent in accordance with the Financial Regulations. The same was resisted by the Department on the ground that the applicant was provided free accommodation and mess facilities under arrangement ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2017 00:16:19 ::: wps2334.00&3453.00 4 with the United Kingdom Government. It was also the contention of the Department that the Royal Military College of Science also paid Daily Personal Allowance at the rate of £ 5 per day from 5th January, 1993 to 17th December, 1993. The relevant regulation reads thus:-
_____________________________________ "In places where no all inclusive rates of D.A. are prescribed.
_____________________________________ 37.5% of the normal cash allowance rate.
OR actual expenditure whichever is less."
___________________________________
02. The learned Tribunal, therefore, found that in view of the Financial Regulations contained in the Office Memorandum, the Original Applicant was entitled to twenty-five per cent Daily Allowance. The learned Tribunal further relied on Clause 7 of the Corrigendum dated 14th May, 1993, which reads thus:-
"7. The Officer will be reimbursed by the Indian High Commission upto a maximum amount of £ 50 to meet the cost of books and stationary plus all expenditure on preparation of Thesis and Project Reports if not met by the U.K. Govt. To claim this he will be required to produce essentiality certificate/receipts."::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2017 00:16:19 :::
wps2334.00&3453.00 5
03. On the basis of the aforesaid Corrigendum, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the original applicant was unfairly denied twenty-five per cent of Daily Allowance. However, in view of Corrigendum dated 2nd March, 1993, the learned Tribunal found that the employee was entitled to twenty-five per cent Daily Allowance minus the allowance which was already received by him from the donor Government. The learned Tribunal, therefore, directed that the Original Applicant should be paid twenty-five per cent Daily Allowance after deducting the allowance which was received by him from the donor Govt., i.e., £ 5 per day.
04. Being aggrieved by grant of twenty-five per cent Daily Allowance, the Department has approached this Court. The Original Applicant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the direction to deduct the amount received by him from the donor Govt. at the rate of £ 5 per day and denial of interest.
05. We find that the learned Tribunal rendered its decision after correct appreciation of the provisions which fell for consideration. The learned Tribunal has considered the Financial Regulations as well as the Office Memorandum in the correct perspective and has held that ::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2017 00:16:19 ::: wps2334.00&3453.00 6 merely because the employee was receiving certain amount towards daily expenses from the donor Government, he was not dis-entitled to Daily Allowance. However, it was correctly held that whatever amount the original applicant received from the donor Govt, the same was liable to be deducted from twenty-five per cent Daily Allowance to which an employee was entitled. The learned Tribunal has given sound and cogent reasons as to why in the facts and circumstances of the case, no case was made out to call for interference.
06. No perversity is found in the order of the learned Tribunal to warrant interference. Both the Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Judge Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
::: Uploaded on - 27/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2017 00:16:19 :::