Md. Sukur Ahmed vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 723 Gua

                                                                   Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010036582022




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : WP(C)/1404/2022

         MD. SUKUR AHMED
         S/O. JAMAL UDDIN, PRESENTLY RESIDING IN QTR. NO.3167, SECTOR 3,
         NOONMATI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), PIN-781020, ASSAM AND PERMANENT
         R/O. VILL. KHATARTARY, DIST. BARPETA, PIN-781321.



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW
         DELHI-110003.

         2:THE INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
          REP. BY THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER
          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
          INDIAN OIL
         AOD STATE OFFICE
          SECTOR-III
          P.O. NOONMATI
          GUWAHATI-781020.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.

          MINISTRY OF FINANCE
          DEPTT. OF EXPENDITURE
          NEW DELHI-110003.

         4:THE GENEREAL MANAGER

          INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD.
          INDIAN OIL
          AOD STATE OFFICE
          SECTOR-III
                                                                  Page No.# 2/7

             P.O. NOONMATI
             GUWAHATI-781020.

             5:THE DIRECTORATE GENERAL

             CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
             NEW DELHI-110003.

             6:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

             CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE
             NORTH EAST ZONE HEADQUARTERS
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM
             PIN-781029.

             7:THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT

             CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT AT IOC GUWAHATI
             PIN-781020

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. U K NAIR

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                             ORDER

02.03.2022

Heard Mr. M.P. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is working as a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) since 02.09.2006. The petitioner was being given transport allowance in his earlier place of posting in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 03.10.1997 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Government of India, which was subsequently modified vide Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2008. The petitioner was initially posted in various Indian Oil Corporation Limited Page No.# 3/7

(IOCL) installations within Assam where he was paid transport allowance. The grievance of the petitioner is that after being posted at the IOCL, Guwahati at Sector-3, the petitioner was not paid his Transport Allowance.

2. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed WP(C) 1411/2021 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 08.03.2021 disposed off WP(C) 1411/2021, with liberty being given to the petitioner to file a representation with regard to his grievance before the respondent authorities. Consequent to the above, the petitioner filed a representation and the respondent authorities thereafter issued the impugned order dated 01.06.2021 wherein it has held that Transport Allowance would not be admissible to those who have been provided with transport facility. The impugned order dated 01.06.2021 states that transport facility has been provided to CISF personnel posted at IOCL, Guwahati and that the petitioner had failed to take note of the same.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that though the transport facility (bus) has been provided to the petitioner in the IOCL, Guwahati which was not available in other IOCL locations, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his Transport Allowance, in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot avail the benefit of the bus, as he is to attend to his duties at different times as per his shift. He also submits that the petitioner would have to travel some distance and reach a particular place, if the petitioner was to avail the benefit of transportation through bus. He submits that the Kerala High Court in its judgment dated 29.09.2021 passed in WP(C) 17061/2021 (P. Raju Pillai vs. The Director Page No.# 4/7

General/CSIF and 5 Others) has held that merely because CISF personnel are provided with Government transport facility to cover a part of the journey, they cannot be deprived of their transport allowance, as they cannot be expected to expend money from their pocket, for commuting from their respective places of residence to the assembly points for availing the transport facility. However due to his shift timings, the petitioner does not avail the bus service. He also submits that the respondents have never informed the petitioner in writing that he has been allocated a particular vehicle for transportation from his residence to his place of duty.

4. Mr. R.K. Deb Choudhury, learned ASGI on the other hand submits that just because the petitioner has allegedly not been availing the transport facility provided by the IOCL, Guwahati Management, the petitioner cannot be given Transport Allowance. He submits that there is no pleading made by the petitioner that he has been expending money from his own pocket to go to his place of duty. He also submits that Sector-3 of the IOCL, Guwahati is a small area and there could not have been any expenses incurred by the petitioner in Sector-3.

5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. A reading of the writ petition clearly goes to show that the petitioner has not denied the fact that transport facility has been provided for carrying CISF personnel to their duty posts. The petitioner in paragraph 11 of the writ petition has stated that the petitioner can seldom avail the benefit of the bus, inasmuch as, the petitioner has to travel some distance and reach a particular place on time, to avail the benefit of transportation through bus. The petitioner's counsel has also Page No.# 5/7

stated that though the respondent authorities have verbally informed the petitioner that an official vehicle was provided to carry him to his place of duty from his residence and vice-a-vice, no official vehicle plies in tandem with the petitioner's shifts.

7. Paragraph 2(ii) of the impugned order dated 01.06.2021 issued by the respondents states that transport allowance shall not be admissible to those employees who have been provided transport facility. Paragraph 2(ii) of the impugned order dated 01.06.2021 is reproduced below :

"ii) That on 25.05.2019, the petitioner was posted at IOCL, Guwahati and after the said posing; he was deprived of Transport Allowance without any reason. The Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance vide Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2017 implemented the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay Commission for grant of Transport Allowance in favour of Central Government Employees.

With regard to averment made by the petitioner at para (ii) above, it is stated that IOC, Guwahati Management has provided Transport facility to all CISF Personnel posted therein. Accordingly, the Dy. General Manager (Admn) for and on behalf of IOCL, Refineries Division, New Delhi vide letter No. S-296/Admn/CISF/Transport All dated 23.09.2013 addressed to the Dy. Inspector General/Adm, CISF HQrs., New Delhi requesting to direct from CISF HQrs., uniformly all CISF Units at all IOCL Refinery locations that CISF Personnel deployed at Refinery Units and provided with Transport facility are not entitled for payment of Transport Allowance. Hence, CISF Personnel including the petitioner deployed at IOCL, Guwahati are not paid Transport Allowance. Further, it is apparent at paragraph No.2(ii) and paragraph No.2(i) of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2008 and dated 07.07.2017 respectively that Transport Allowance shall not be admissible to those employees who have been provided with the facility of Government Transport, which the petitioner failed to take note of it. Hence, the plea put forth by the petitioner that he has been deprived of Transport Allowance at IOCL Guwahati without any reason, has no legs to stand upon."

Page No.# 6/7

8. The Kerala High Court in its judgment dated 29.09.2021 passed in WP(C) 17061/2021 (P. Raju Pillai vs. The Director General/CSIF and 5 Others) has held that merely because CISF personnel are provided with Government transport facility to cover a part of the journey, they cannot be deprived of their transport allowance as they cannot be expected to expend money from their pocket for commuting from their respective places of residence to the assembly points for availing the transport facility. The Kerala High Court thus held that the CISF personnel cannot be deprived of their right to Transport Allowance, on the basis that they have been provided with transportation facility, to cover up a part of their route by making their own arrangement for attending to their duty.

9. There is nothing in the writ petition which is to the effect that the petitioner is expending money from his own pocket to reach his place of duty or that he is using some other mode of transport. There is nothing to show whether the distance to be travelled by the petitioner to his duty/sentry post and the distance from his residence to the bus stop is huge. The petitioner's residence and duty post being within Sector-3 of the IOCL, Guwahati, the distance to be covered by the petitioner could have a bearing on this case. Further, the bus timings and his shift timings could also have bearing on the issue raised. However, the petitioner has failed to provide detailed specifics in this regard. These all being questions of fact, this writ Court is constrained in coming to a finding on vague facts.

10. In view of the reasons mentioned in the foregoing paragraph, as the issue raised also involves questions of facts, the petitioner would have to give detailed specifics to show that the decision of the Kerala Page No.# 7/7

High Court in P. Raju Pillai (supra) can be made applicable to him. However, as transport facility has been provided to the petitioner and there is nothing to show that the petitioner has been expending money or availing of some other mode of transport to attend to his duties, this Court is not inclined to exercise it's discretion at this stage. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is given the liberty to submit a further representation to the respondent authorities with regard to why the petitioner has not been able to avail of the transport facility provided by the IOCL, Guwahati. The petitioner should also in his representation, give the timings/ frequency of the bus facility and his shift timings. He should also give specifics with regard to the distance between his place of residence vis-a-vis the bus stop and his duty post. If the petitioner submits his representation, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and take a decision on the same, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the representation, which shall be accompanied by a certified copy of this order.

11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant