Petitioners, retired CISF personnel, challenged an order denying them transport allowance. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that factual disputes regarding transport facilities are not for the Court to decide in civil jurisdiction and no illegality vitiated the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 30503 of 2012 (K)
PETITIONER(S) :
1. P.K.GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR
2. K.P.MATHAI,
RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR NO.713340031, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN, RESIDING AT KAVANAD HOUSE, PUTTUMANOOR, PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 308.
3. T.V.RAVI,
4. K.SASIDHARAN,
BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. THE COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682 003.
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL` CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, D BLOCK, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090.
..2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 30503 of 2012 (K)
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, SOUTHERN SECTOR, RAJAJI BHAVAN, BASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE HEADQUARTERS, BLOCK NO.13, C.G.O.COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003
5. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON 26-10-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 30503 of 2012 (K)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V-15014/L&R/SS/CC/PKGN/ 2012/314 DATED 24-08-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 29.05.2009.
EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.05.2011.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
JUDGMENT
W.P.(C).No.30503/12
2
benefit of such allowance to them as well, the said claim was rejected by the 3rd respondent by Exhibit P8.
W.P.(C).No.30503/12
3
that the Government transport provided to them was withdrawn from July 2011. Since the petitioner had been provided with Government transport facility, they were not entitled to Transport Allowance, it is contended.
W.P.(C).No.30503/12
4
employees who had been provided with a facility of Government transport. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated as follows:
“Prior to the increase in the strength of CISF personnel in CISF Unit, Cochin Port Trust, one bus and one Truck was being provided to shift the duty personnel. The service of the Truck was used by the CISF personnel in the place of the bus, when the bus developed any technical snags. In the year 2011, CPT Management provided a new Bus to the CISF replacing the old bus. Consequent upon the increase in the strength of CISF personnel in Cochin Port Trust due to induction in Vallarpadam Container Terminal and LNG, the Cochin Port began providing hired vehicle to the CISF personnel. However, these vehicles provided by the management were not exclusively for shifting of duty personnel as it was being utilised for other operational and administrative purpose also.”
“It is further submitted that all the personnel of CISF Unit Cochin Port Trust were granted Transport Allowance from July 2011 onwards and the Government transport provided to them was withdrawn from July 2011.”
W.P.(C).No.30503/12
5
Compensatory Allowance only for those employees who are not provided with Government transport from their residence to their place of duty and vice versa. Exhibit P8 impugned order as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents specifically contends that the writ petitioners were persons employed in the CISF, Cochin Port Trust Unit and had been provided with transport facilities by the Department. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the said assertion, it is not possible for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enter into and decide upon the factual basis of such assertion. The contention in Exhibit P8 is that the full departmental transport facility available to duty personnel was withdrawn from July 2011 and this is cited as the reason for grant of Transport Allowance to CISF personnel from July 2011 onwards.
W.P.(C).No.30503/12
6
sd/-
extraordinary jurisdiction. In the above view of the matter, Exhibit P8, being an administrative order, appears to be informed by reasons. I see no procedural irregularity or illegality vitiating Exhibit P8 which justifies interference by this Court. The writ petition, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order denying transport allowance to retired CISF personnel provided with departmental government transport is susceptible to judicial review.
Whether the High Court in extraordinary jurisdiction can adjudicate factual disputes regarding the adequacy and availability of government transport facilities.
P.K.Gopalkrishnan Nair
K.P.Mathai
T.V.Ravi
K.Sasidharan
The Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Cochin Port Trust
The Designer General, Central Industrial Security Force Headquarters
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
