Punjab-Haryana High Court
Som Dutt vs State Of Haryana Etc on 10 April, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049076
2024:PHHC:049076
RSA-2347-1999
-1-
104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA-2347-1999
Date of order:-10.04.2024
Som Dutt
...Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present :- Mr.Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for
Mr.Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Aman Bahri, Addl.A.G., Haryana
for the respondents.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Plaintiff - appellant is before this Court by way of the
instant second appeal challenging the concurrent findings recorded by
both the Courts below.
2. Brief facts may be noticed.
3. Som Dutt, plaintiff - appellant, who was working as
Agriculture Inspector, applied for Leave Travel Concession (LTC) for
his wife and mother for the period from 18.12.1992 to 11.01.1993 for
their proposed visit to Kanyakumari. After he submitted an affidavit of
dependency of his mother, the matter was sent to the Government for
clarification. Subsequently, he came to know that the request had been
rejected as his family members had proceeded on LTC without prior
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049076
2024:PHHC:049076
RSA-2347-1999
sanction. His request for post-facto sanction of LTC, was also rejected.
He filed a suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to make
the payment of LTC. Upon notice, suit was contested by the defendants
by filing written statement wherein it was submitted that after applying
for sanction of LTC, plaintiff submitted an application for making
change in the dates. A stand has been taken that his family members
have availed LTC without prior approval, which is violative of the
Government rules and instructions. It was further submitted that plaintiff
has failed to challenge the rejection orders and the suit was not
maintainable in the present form. In the replication, plaintiff reasserted
his claim. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and after
they led evidence, trial Court by judgment and decree dated 30.10.1996
dismissed the suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff was rejected by
learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani by judgment dated
26.08.1998, resulting in the institution of the present appeal by him.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions as well as examined the record with their able
assistance.
5. Instructions dated 31.12.1984 Ex.DA have been issued by
the Government of Haryana for grant of Leave Travel Concession by the
State Government employees for visiting any place in India. Condition
(v) of para No.2, which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal, is
being reproduced as under:
"(v) Prior permission of the Head of Department of
Administrative Department as the case may be should be obtained
before undertaking the journey while availing of the concession. A
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:049076
2024:PHHC:049076
RSA-2347-1999
copy of the application form in which employees should seek such
permission is at Annexure 'A'."
6. Perusal of the above reproduced condition shows that it was
obligatory for a Government employee to seek prior permission of the
Administrative Department before undertaking the journey and availing
of concession. From the material on record, it is evident that the family
members of the plaintiff/appellant had undertaken the journey without
prior approval. Furthermore, perusal of order dated 07.09.1993 Ex.D8 as
well as 11.11.1993 show that the permission for proceeding on LTC
sought by the plaintiff had been specifically rejected by the defendants.
Although the plaintiff/appellant had instituted the suit in April 1995 but
he has failed to assail both the orders. In the absence of any challenge to
the said orders, this suit in any case is not maintainable. This Court is,
therefore, of the view that the reasoning given by the Courts below does
not call for any interference and the judgments and decrees of both the
Courts deserve to be upheld.
7. Finding no merit in the appeal, it is hereby dismissed with
no order as to costs.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
10.04.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
