Judgment:
Rs.No.1015 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.1015 of 1988 Date of decision: March 4, 2013 The State of Punjab and others ...Appellants Versus Dr.
Manot Sobti and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Baljinder Singh Sra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr.Sukant Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents.
A.N.JINDAL, J.
(Oral) Respondent No.1/plaintiff while working as Medical Officer claimed that he is entitled to Bet Area Allowance and Special Compensatory Allowance, as he is posted at Fatehabad, which is within the belt of 5 kms from the river Beas.
The appellants contested the suit wherein it was specifically pleaded that since the case of the respondent is not covered under the rules, therefore, he is not entitled to either Bet Area or Special Compensatory Allowance.
It was further explained that the said allowances were admissible only to those employees, who were posted in the Bet area villages, as declared by the Government in the official Gazette and the village Fatehabad, where the respondent is posted, does not fall in the Bet area villages.
Both the courts were of the consistent view that the plaintiff was posted within the permissible limits of the Bet Area.
Therefore, he was entitled to the aforesaid allowances.
Rs.No.1015 o”
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has again reiterated that the place where the respondent was posted does not fall within the permissible limits of the Bet area.
Before proceeding to decide as to whether the place of posting of the plaintiff/respondent falls within the Bet area, it is necessary to go through the definition of the Bet Area, which has been given in the Punjab Government letter dated 23.2.1974, which is reproduced as under:- “Letter No.184-AC (3)-74/6084 dated 23.2.1974 from the Chief Secretary to Govt.
Punjab to All Head of the Departments State of Punjab, Commissioners of Division and Deputy Commissioners in the State.
Sub: Definition of the Bet Areas in the State.
In addressing you on the subject opted above, I am directed to say that the question of defining the Bet Areas of the State has been considered by the Government on the recommendation of the Bet Areas Advisory Council and it has been decided that all the areas lying within a belt of 5 (five) kilometers on either side from the Centre of the bed of the river should be treated as Bet Areas”.not the question arises, whether village “Fatehabad”., where the respondent is posted, is within five kilometers belt of the Beas river.
The respondent has produced overwhelming evidence on record to establish that the said village falls within five kilometers belt from the centre of the river Beas.
The trial court also appointed Local Commissioner, Ram Gopal, to ascertain the distance between the village Fatehabad and river Beas and he reported that the distance i”
2. 5 meters or more between the two Rs.No.1015 o”
3. places.
Since the report of the Local Commissioner was not objected to by any of the parties, therefore, the same was admissible under Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
That apart, Dalbir Singh, Circle Patwari (PW2) appeared in the witness box to prove that village Fatehabad was within five kilometers from the river Beas.
Charanjit Singh (PW3) also supported the case set up by the respondent.
As such keeping in view the overwhelming evidence so led by the respondent and in the absence of any cogent evidence produced by the appellant to prove that the distance between Fatehabad and Beas river is more than five kilometeRs.the benefit of “Bet Area and Special Compensatory Allowances”.
were rightly extended to the respondent.
No substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal.
Dismissed.
March 4, 2013 (A.N.JINDAL) prem JUDGE