Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh vs Punjab State Elec.Board on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048634
-1-
RSA-2753 of 1998 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:048634
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2753 of 1998 (O&M)
Date of decision: 09.04.2024
Jaspal Singh
......Appellant
Versus
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate, and
Ms. Suraksha Masih, Advocate, for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
CM-5002-C of 1998
1. This application has been filed by the applicant-appellant
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of five
days in filing the appeal.
2. In view of the averments made in the application, which is
duly supported by an affidavit, same is allowed. Delay of five days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
CM-5003-C of 1998
1. This application has been filed by the applicant-appellant
under Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay of 35 days in refilling
the appeal.
2. In view of the averments made in the application, which is
duly supported by an affidavit, same is allowed. Delay of 35 days in
refilling the appeal is condoned.
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048634
RSA-2753 of 1998 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:048634
RSA-2753 of 1998
1. This regular second appeal is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 22.07.1995 passed by the Court of learned
Senior Sub Judge, Patiala, whereby suit for declaration filed by the
appellant-plaintiff was dismissed as well as against the judgment and
decree dated 22.10.1997 passed by the Court of learned Additional
District Judge, Patiala, whereby appeal filed by the appellant has also
been dismissed.
2. For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made
as per their status in the civil suit. Brief facts of the case are that
plaintiff filed a suit for declaration pleading therein that action of the
defendant for not paying travelling allowance to him from 6/90 to 2/91
is illegal, null and void and plaintiff is entitled to travelling allowance
for these months alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. It is the case of
the plaintiff that he is driver under the P.S.E.B. Earlier to 30.05.1990 he
was attached with Sh. K.C. Verma, Chief Engineer, PSEB. Head
Quarter of Chief Engineer was at Chandigarh. Hence Head Quarter of
the plaintiff was also at Chandigarh. Sh. K.C. Verma, retired from
service on 30.05.1990. As per Instructions of PSEB, whenever the car
is spare, the same is to return to common pool alongwith its driver. In
compliance with those instructions, plaintiff reported at Patiala on
30.06.1990 alongwith the car. Since then he is working and performing
his duties at Patiala. His formal transfer order dated 19.04.1991 was
passed by the competent authority. Through this order, headquarter of
the plaintiff was shifted from Chandigarh to Patiala w.e.f. 30.06.1990.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048634
RSA-2753 of 1998 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:048634
Plaintiff claimed that his Head Quarter was already at Chandigarh. He
was never transferred to Patiala. His family was also residing at
Chandigarh. From Chandigarh he was deputed to Patiala, as it was a
tour for him. Hence, he put forward the claim of travelling allowance
from 6/90 to 2/91. The said claim was rejected by the defendant.
3. Upon notice, defendant appeared and filed written
statement stating that after retirement of Sh. K.C. Verma on
30.05.1990, staff car was to return to common pool at Patiala and in
compliance with those instructions, plaintiff reported at Patiala on
30.06.1990 and since then Head Quarter of the plaintiff is at Patiala.
Therefore, he is not entitled to any travelling allowance for this period.
It is also pleaded that formal transfer order of the plaintiff was also
issued on 19.04.1991 which was made operative w.e.f. 30.6.1990.
Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the travelling allowance and
his suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the replication plaintiff denied the contentions of the
defendant and reiterated his averments made in the plaint.
5. From the pleading of the parties, following issues were
framed by the trial Court: -
1. Whether action of the defendants by not paying the
amount of travelling allowance bills to the plaintiff
for the period from 6/90 to 2/91 and office order dt.
19.4.1991, whereby plaintiff was transferred to
Patiala are illegal, null and void ultravires
unconstitutional? OPP
2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present
form? OPD
3. Whether matter in dispute is not justiciable by civil
court? OPD
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048634
RSA-2753 of 1998 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:048634
4. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action to file the
present suit? OPD
5. Relief.
6. The parties led their respective evidence. The Court of the
first instance, after appreciating evidence on record, vide judgment and
decree dated 22.07.1995, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
7. Feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of
the trial Court, plaintiff preferred an appeal before the lower appellate
Court, which also met the same fate, vide judgment and decree dated
22.10.1997.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the
Courts below erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. She further
contended that both the Courts below failed to appreciate that Head
Quarter of the plaintiff continued to remain at Chandigarh till
19.04.1991 and appellant was also residing at Chandigarh, therefore, he
is entitled for travelling allowance from 06/1990 to 02/1991. She
further contended that judgments and decrees of both the Courts below
are based on conjectures and surmises, therefore, same are liable to be
set aside.
9. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused
the record.
11. Perusal of the record shows that as per standing orders
issued by respondent-defendant, plaintiff-appellant was to report along
with staff car at Patiala after the officer with whom that car was
attached, retired. Admittedly, appellant-plaintiff was attached with
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048634
RSA-2753 of 1998 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:048634
Chief Engineer at Chandigarh, who retired on 30.05.1990. Therefore,
headquarter of the appellant was automatically changed from
Chandigarh to Patiala. During his cross-examination, plaintiff has
stated that he was verbally told to report at Patiala in common pool
Secretariat. Lower Appellate Court has rightly observed that nature of
the duty of the plaintiff itself makes it clear that his headquarter was to
be deemed at the place where the staff car was to be kept. When the
headquarter of the plaintiff itself was changed to Patiala, there was no
question of payment of any travelling allowance to him from
Chandigarh to Patiala. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff-appellant has
rightly been rejected by the Courts below.
12. Concurrent findings have been recorded by both the
Courts below and learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show
that the same are perverse or illegal or based on misreading, non-
reading or mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record.
13. No question of law, muchless substantial question of law
has been raised or arises for consideration in the present appeal. No
other point has been urged.
14. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
09.04.2024 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
