Chhaganlal Kashiram Sharanagat vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. Secy. ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 174 Bom

                                                       1                        wp4411.06

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                           WRIT PETITION  NO.4411 OF 2006


Shri Chhaganlal Kashiram Sharanagat, 
r/o c/o Industrial Training Institute, 
Arvi, District Wardha.                                     ...            Petitioner

                     - Versus -

1)      State of Maharashtra, through its
        Secretary, Department of Technical 
        Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 

2)      The Director (Training), Vocational
        Education and Training, Directorate, 
        Elephinston Technical School Building, 
        3, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai-1. 

3)      The Deputy Director, Vocational
        Education and Training, Regional 
        Office, Link Road, Nagpur. 

4)      The Principal, Industrial Training
        Institute, Tumsar, District Bhandara. 

5)      The Principal, Industrial Training
        Institute, Gondia.                                 ...            Respondents


                                   -----------------
Shri P.N. Shende, Advocate for petitioner. 
Shri S.A. Ashirgade, Additional Government Pleader for respondents. 
                                   ----------------




    ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2018                             ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2018 01:57:47 :::
                                                     2                            wp4411.06


                                          CORAM :    B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND 
                                                     MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI,  JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 8, 2018

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :

Heard Adv. Shende for petitioner and Shri Ashirgade, learned

Additional Government Pleader for respondents.

2) The petitioner with his headquarter at Tumsar was required to

work for one year at Gondia and for one year at Bhandara. Distance

between Tumsar and Gondia or Tumsar and Bhandara is more than 8 kms.

It is roughly 30 kms.

3) Grievance of Adv. Shende is that though Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal has allowed prayer of petitioner and directed his

employer to grant travelling allowance, daily allowance has been declined.

He is relying upon Circular dated 12/6/1979 to show eligibility of

petitioner to daily allowance.

4) Shri Ashirgade, learned Additional Government Pleader points

out that only application for early hearing is listed today and as travelling

allowance is paid, daily allowance is rightly held not admissible.

5)                With   the   assistance   of   learned   Counsel   for   the   parties,   we

have perused the judgment of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.    In





                                                    3                              wp4411.06

para 10 of the judgment, learned Tribunal has found that when

Government employee is sent for duty at a place beyond 8 kms. and is

required to stay there to discharge his duties, he is entitled to daily

allowance.

6) Here, petitioner has not pointed out that for one year he was

staying at either Gondia or Bhandara. Had he been staying at Gondia or

Bhandara, his prayer for travelling allowance would have been

accordingly looked into. Having secured travelling allowance for journey

every day to these places, request for daily allowance is misconceived.

7) We, therefore, do not find any substance in the petition as

filed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Consequently,

Civil Application No.2618/2017 is also disposed of. No costs.

                    JUDGE                                                     JUDGE




khj