Bombay High Court
Chairman,Ordance Factory ... vs Sp Yadav,Ex-Joint Director ... on 25 April, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
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
wps2334.00&3453.00
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."
wps2334.00&3453.00
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
wps2334.00&3453.00
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|
