Bombay High Court
Siddiqui Mohammad Mujeeb ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 25 August, 2021
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, S. G. Mehare
*1* 902wp485o20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.485 OF 2020
Siddiqui Mohammad Mujeeb s/o
Mohammad Ayyub Siddiqui,
Age : 54 years, Occupation : Teacher,
MCVC Department,
Maulana Azad High School and
Junior College, Town Hall,
Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through the Secretary,
Department of Higher and
Technical Education,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Deputy Director,
Vocational Educational and
Trainining, Bhadkal Gate,
Aurangabad.
3. The Joint Director,
Vocational Education and Training,
Bhadkal Gate, Aurangabad.
4. Anjuman Ishat-E- Taalim Trust.
Through its Secretary,
Gulam Mehmood Akther,
National Colony,
Opp. Maulana Azad College,
Rouza Baugh, Aurangabad.
5. The Principal,
Maulana Azad High School and
Junior College, Town Hall,
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/10/2021 05:09:22 :::
*2* 902wp485o20
Aurangabad.
....RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Mohammad Waseemullah, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.G. Sangle, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri S.S. Kazi, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE :- 25th August, 2021
Oral Judgment (Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.):-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses B and
as under :-
"(B) By issuing writ of direction or writ in like
nature, the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 may kindly
be directed to release the Travelling Allowance
of the Petitioner since from June 2012 to till
date, amounting to Rs.90000/- App.
(C) The Respondent Nos.4 and 5 may also be
directed to pay the salary of two days of dated
09.08.2016 and 27.12.2016 of the petitioner by
considering it to be casual leave, amounting to
Rs.6000/- App."
3. There has been no ad-interim protection to the
*3* 902wp485o20
petitioner in this Court.
4. The petitioner has approached this Court contending
that he was entitled for Travelling Allowance (TA) since, though
he was residing within one kilometer from the place of work, he
was not occupying an accommodation provided by the
Management. He has relied upon the Government Resolution
dated 05.04.2010 in which, clause 3 (1) on internal page 2
indicates that an employee, who is residing within one kilometer
distance between the place of work and his residence, would not
be entitled for travelling allowance, if he is occupying the
residence, which is provided by the employer.
5. The learned advocate for the respondents/
Management points out the communication dated 27.01.2006
addressed by the petitioner to the Principal of the College stating
therein that he would not dispute that he was residing within one
kilometer from the place of work. He was not occupying the
residence provided by the Management. Yet, he agreed for
recovery of the travelling allowance amount already paid at the
rate of Rs.200/- per month with a rider that since there are about
30 to 35 similarly situated employees, recovery should also be
made uniformly from all of them and the petitioner should not be
*4* 902wp485o20
picked and chosen selectively for such action of recovery.
6. Since we find that clause 3(1) under the Government
Resolution dated 05.04.2010 is unambiguous and disentitles an
employee from travelling allowance only if he is occupying the
residence provided by the employer and which is within one
kilometer from the place of work, that respondent No.2 would be
the appropriate authority to consider the case of employees, who
are similarly situated as like the petitioner.
7. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed off with the
following directions :-
(a) Respondent No.2/ Deputy Director would issue a
notice to respondent No.4 calling upon it to supply the list of
employees, who have been granted accommodations by the
Management and are residing within one kilometer from
respondent No.5/School & Junior College.
(b) After receiving such list, respondent No.2 would
issue notices to all these employees as well as the Management
for holding a hearing on whether, the travelling allowance
amount has been wrongly paid.
(c) After affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing
to all affected parties and on perusing the records, respondent
*5* 902wp485o20
No.2 shall pass a reasoned order on or before 31.12.2021.
(d) Needless to state, respondent No.2 shall decide as to
which employees are occupying official accommodations
provided by the Management and shall declare which of these
employees would be entitled for travelling allowance and who
would be disentitled for the same.
(e) If any of the employees, who are not occupying the
accommodation provided by the Management or though
occupying such accommodation, reside beyond one kilometer
from the school, shall be held to be entitled and in which case,
respondent No.2 would peruse the record for assessing the
arrears of travelling allowance and shall, accordingly, direct the
Management to pay such arrears to such eligible employees.
(f) Considering the law laid down by the Honourable
Supreme Court in Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar, 2009 (3)
SCC 475 and the State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) and others, 2015 (4) SCC 334, we direct that if
any employee has been erroneously paid the travelling
allowance, such payment shall be stopped forthwith, though
recovery shall not be effected.
(g) If recovery has already been effected from any
*6* 902wp485o20
employee by now and who is held to be disentitled, further
recovery may be stopped and the recovered amount need not be
refunded.
8. Rule is discharged.
kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
