Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Chhaganlal Kashiram Sharanagat on 15 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp4444.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.4444/2005
PETITIONERS: 1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary, Department of
Technical Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 1.
2. The Director (Training)
Vocational Education and Training
Directorate, Elphinston Technical School
ig Building, 3 Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai - 1.
3. The Deputy Director of Vocational
Education and Training, Regional Office,
Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur.
4. The Principal,
Industrial Training Institute, Tumsar,
Distt. Bhandara.
5. The Principal,
Industrial Training Institute, Gondia.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : Shri Chhaganlal Kashiram Sharanagat,
Aged Major, Resident of Tumsar,
Distt. Bhandara.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A.A. Madiwale, AGP for petitioners
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 15.10.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 23.11.2004, so far as it
wp4444.05.odt
allows the original application filed by the respondent and directs the
petitioners to pay the travelling allowance to the respondent for travelling
from Tumsar to Gondia and Bhandara during the period from 12.8.2002
to 15.3.2004.
The respondent was appointed as a Crafts Instructor in the
year 1993 and though at the relevant time in the year 2002 his
headquarter was at Tumsar he was sent to Gondia from 12.8.2002 to
11.7.2003 and thereafter to Bhandara from 19.1.2003 to 15.3.2004.
According to the respondent, the petitioners could not have refused to pay
the travelling allowance to the respondent as his headquarter was
retained at Tumsar and he was asked to work at Gondia and Bhandara
and that resulted in additional taxation on the salary of the respondent.
The Tribunal partly allowed the original application filed by the
respondent and directed the petitioners to pay the amount equal to the
actual expenses incurred by the respondent for attending his duty from
Tumsar to Gondia and from Tumsar to Bhandara during the aforesaid
period. The petitioners have impugned the said order in this writ petition.
When this writ petition was admitted, this Court had stayed
the order of the Tribunal so far it directed the petitioners to pay the actual
expenses incurred by the respondent for travelling, with the result that
the said amount is not paid by the petitioners to the respondent, till date.
wp4444.05.odt
Shri Madiwale, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioners has challenged the order of the Tribunal on
several grounds. It is submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider
the material aspects of the matter while partly allowing the original
application filed by the respondent. It is stated that the Tribunal failed to
consider that in the orders, dated 3.8.2002 and 30.9.2003, asking the
respondent to work at Gondia and Bhandara, it is clearly mentioned that
the respondent and all the other employees, that were mentioned in the
said orders, were not entitled to travelling allowance. It is stated that the
respondent had accepted the said orders without any demur and had not
challenged them after they were issued or even in the original application
filed by him. It is submitted that the respondent was sent to Bhandara at
his own request and on the representation made by him to the petitioners
- authorities. It is submitted that once the respondent was sent at
Bhandara at his own request, he could not have sought the travelling
allowance from Tumsar to Bhandara. It is submitted that the respondent
was advanced a loan amount of Rs.86,250/- as a first installment as early
as on 31.7.2002, for the construction of his house in Bhandara and hence
when the respondent was sent to Bhandara by the order dated 30.9.2003,
he could not have claimed the travelling allowance. It is stated that as the
house of the respondent was under construction at Bhandara since the
wp4444.05.odt
year 2002, the respondent could not have sought the travelling allowance
from Tumsar to Bhandara, when he was sent to Bhandara on 30.9.2003.
It is stated that the Tribunal could not have considered the order of the
Tribunal in Original Application No.403/2004 in the case of Sau. Nandini,
as Sau. Nandini was not an employee of the Department in which the
respondent was working, i.e., Department of Higher and Technical
Education and was an employee of Tribal Development Department. It is
stated that the facts narrated herein above were not involved in the case
of Nandini and hence, the order in the original application filed by
Nandini did not have a relevance while deciding the original application
filed by the respondent.
On hearing the learned Assistant Government Pleader and
on a perusal of the impugned order as also the documents annexed to the
writ petition including the orders, dated 3.8.2002 and 30.9.2003 and the
representation of the respondent that he should be sent to Bhandara, it
appears that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the application of
the respondent so as to grant the prayer for a direction against the
petitioners to pay the actual travelling expenses to the respondent.
Though the orders, dated 3.8.2002 and 30.9.2003 clearly mentioned that
the respondent and the other employees, that were mentioned in the said
orders, would not be entitled to travelling allowance or any other
wp4444.05.odt
allowance of a similar nature, the respondent did not challenge the
orders. In the original application also the respondent has not challenged
the aforesaid condition in the said orders. The respondent was granted a
loan for construction of a house in Bhandara in the year 2002 and he was
sent to Bhandara in the next year at his own request. It is clear on a
reading of the representation made by the respondent to the petitioner
no.3 dated 12.8.2002 that the respondent had requested the concerned
petitioner for sending the respondent to Bhandara as he was constructing
his house at Bhandara and his children were studying at Bhandara. If that
be so, it is apparent that the respondent was not travelling to and fro from
Bhandara to Tumsar though his headquarter was Tumsar. It is rightly
submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the Tribunal could not have
considered the decision in the original application filed by Nandini, as
Nandini was an employee of the other Department of the State
Government and the facts involved in the case of Nandini were different
from the facts involved in the case of the respondent. The Tribunal,
however, did not consider these material aspects while deciding the
original application and directing the petitioners to pay the actual
travelling expenses to the respondent. The impugned order is clearly
erroneous and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
wp4444.05.odt
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order, so far as it directs the petitioners to pay the
actual travelling expenses to the respondent, is hereby quashed and set
aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order
as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
