Partly allowed

Gjarat Rajya Arogya Karmacharimahasangh v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC12 Dec 2012SCA/5140/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that field employees are not entitled to permanent travelling allowance irrespective of distance. While the Government stood on merits, the Court quashed Condition No. 8 of the impugned resolution, barring recovery of previously granted amounts absent fraud.

What did the court decide?

The condition in the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2002 requiring refund of amounts paid is quashed and set aside.

Gjarat Rajya Arogya Karmacharimahasangh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

C/SCA/5140/2002 JUDGEMNT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5140 of 2002

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

¶6

================================================================

¶7

1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶8

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶9

3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?

¶10

4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶11

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶12

================================================================

¶13

GJARAT RAJYA AROGYA KARMACHARIMAHASANGH AND OTHERS ....Petitioners

¶14

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ....Respondents

¶15

================================================================

¶16

Appearance:

¶17

Mr. N.K.Majmudar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr.Neeraj Soni, AGP for the Respondents

¶18

================================================================

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY

¶20

Date : 12/12/2012

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

By way of this petition invoking Article 226 of the

¶23

Page 1 of 6

¶24

C/SCA/5140/2002 JUDGEMNT

¶25

Constitution of India, challenge is made to Condition Nos.2 and 8 of the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2002, whereby the stipulation regarding payment of Permanent Travelling Allowance to the employees working on the field, in Health Department of Government of Gujarat, is changed to their detriment. According to the petitioners, it is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and prayer is made to quash and set aside the same.

¶26

Heard Shri N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted that the object of granting permanent travelling allowance was to compensate the field employees for travelling, which is undertaken by them and whether they travel within 8 kelometers or beyond 8 kelometers should not be a criteria at all. With regard to condition No.2 of the impugned resolution, it is contended that there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by prescribing 8 kelometers as the criteria. It is further contended that so far condition no.8 of ordering recovery of the amount paid towards permanent allowance to the employees during the period from 01.02.2000 to 12.04.2002 is concerned, the same is illegal since it is not even the case of the Government that there was any fraud or misrepresentation by the employees and as

¶27

Page 2 of 6

¶28

C/SCA/5140/2002 JUDGEMNT

¶29

per settled position of law, the recovery could not have been ordered.

¶30

On the other hand, Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State authorities has, by referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of authorities, contended that the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2002 on the ground that irrespective of any condition of travelling beyond 8 kelometers from the Head Quarter of the respective employees, they should be granted permanent travelling allowance, cannot be sustained and such demand of the employees can not be accepted in accordance with law and therefore no interference be made. It is further contended by learned AGP that the amount was paid to the employees with effect from 01.02.2000 pursuant to a policy decision of the Government, which is reviewed by the Government subsequently and by the impugned resolution dated 12.04.2002, since it is held that the employees were not entitled to permanent travelling allowance, the said amount is required to be refunded by the employees.

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and having gone through the record, I find that learned advocate for the

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

C/SCA/5140/2002 JUDGEMNT

¶34

petitioner is not right in contending that the employees who travel as part of their duty for whatever distance, should get permanent travelling allowance. If the field workers are expected to go from one place to another place, as part of their duty, they cannot claim extra compensation for the same. Further, in the affidavit-in-reply it is already made clear that as and when an employee is asked to travel from one place to another place, or from one town to another town, as per rules, he is entitled to travelling allowance and if within the same town he is expected to travel, which, in the opinion of Head Office, is worth granting conveyance allowance on a particular occasion, the same is being granted to employees, but the employees cannot claim that irrespective of their travelling or distance thereof, only because they are working in the field therefore they must get permanent travelling allowance. In my view, the stand of the Government is well-founded and the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in this regard, is meritless and the same needs to be rejected and is rejected.

¶35

So far as challenge to the condition no.8 of Government Resolution dated 12.04.2002 is concerned, I find that the policy of Government with regard to payment of permanent travelling

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

C/SCA/5140/2002 JUDGEMNT

¶38

allowance to the employees working on the filed in Health Department, has been changed from time to time. By Government Resolution dated 27.12.2000 irrespective of 8 kelometers criteria, certain category of employees was held to be entitled to get permanent travelling allowance. The same is discontinued by Government Resolution on 12.04.2002 which is impugned in this petition and the challenge to which on merits is being negatted by this Court by this judgment. However, by one of the conditions prescribed in Government Resolution dated 12.04.2002, State can not be permitted to claim refund of the amount which is already paid to the employees. The said period in the facts of this case is from January, 2000 to April, 2002. It is not even the case of the authorities of the Government that the said payment was because of fraud or misrepresentation by the concerned employees. It is undisputed that the same was because of the policy of the Government and that policy is changed but therefore Government cannot be permitted to say that the Government will now recover said amount from the employees. Thus, condition no.8 prescribed in Government Resolution dated 12.04.2002 is held to be illegal and arbitrary.

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

C/SCA/5140/2002 JUDGEMNT

¶41

For the reasons recorded above, the petition partly succeeds. The challenge to Government Resolution dated 12.04.2002 on merits, that the employees are entitled to get permanent travelling allowance, is rejected. However, condition no.8 of the said Government Resolution whereby amount is claimed back by the Government from the employees, to whom payment was made for permanent travelling allowance, is held to be illegal and arbitrary and the said condition is quashed and set aside. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. Rule made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.

¶42

(PARESH UPADHYAY, J.)

¶43

dharmendra/24

¶44

Page 6 of 6

Gjarat Rajya Arogya Karmacharimahasangh v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gjarat Rajya Arogya Karmacharimahasangh v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.H. Mehta Vs State of Gujarat

Jumakhlal Jadavji Shah Vs State of Gujarat

Avinash B Pandya Vs Botad Nagarpalika Thro Chief Officer

S C Patel Vs State of Gujarat

J.B.Mandavia Vs State of Gujarat

Pm Bedheka Vs State of Gujarat