Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J):
1. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief;
(a) to direct the respondent to waive/withdraw the amount Rs.4175/- as has been shown as outstanding by Zonal Accounts Office, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Kolkata, in view of office memo dt.6.2.2006 to direct the respondents to consider settlement of Bills according to the Office Memo dt.6.2.2006 to direct the respondents to grant all the consequential benefits.
To pass any other order/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Award cost.
2. The brief facts of the applicants case are that while working as Private Secretary in the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, he was selected and appointed as Senior Private Secretary by the Settlement Commission (Income Tax and Wealth Tax), Additional Branch, Kolkota, on deputation basis for a period of three years, which was extendable by another year. He joined the Settlement Commission (ITandWT), Kolkata, as Senior Private Secretary on 2.4.2007. He applied for Government accommodation also on 2.4.2007. After his joining, he proceeded from Kolkata to New Delhi to bring his personal effects and conveyance. The Government accommodation was allotted to him on 9.5.2007. He submitted his Transfer T.A.Bill on 29.5.2007 which included the travelling expenses of self and his family members, transportation of personal effects and conveyance and one additional to and fro fare for himself.
2.1 It is stated by the applicant that the respondents, instead of settling his Transfer TA Bill, made frivolous reference to the Vigilance Section of the applicants parent Department and asked for information under R.T.I Act through third party to delay the final settlement of his Transfer T.A.Bill. However, presumably when the T.T.A.Bill was being settled sometimes in November 2009, on being asked by the respondents, the applicant deposited an amount of Rs.808/- in TR 6 challan towards refund of Transfer T.A. Advance, along with interest thereon, on 9.11.2009, vide Annexure-E.
2.2 It is also stated by the applicant that the Zonal Accounts Officer, CB.D.T., Kolkata (respondent no.3) raised an objection as to the entitlement of the applicant to the additional to and fro fare of Rs.4,175/-. To this, the applicant clarified that his family members were brought from New Delhi to Kolkata prior to transportation of his personal effects and conveyance. He also brought to the notice of the respondents that he was entitled to the additional to and fro far in terms of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, O.M. dated 6.2.2006 (Annexure F).
2.3 The applicant further states that the respondents did not pay any heed to the clarification offered by him, and ultimately, the additional to and fro fare was disallowed and an amount of Rs.4,175/- was shown by the respondent no.3 as outstanding against him.
2.4 After completion of his tenure of deputation, the applicant was repatriated to his parent Department, i.e., the Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, where he joined in April 2011. The representations made by him during 2010, 2011 and 2012 (Annexure A Colly.) in the matter having yielded no response from the respondents, he has approached this Tribunal by filing the present OA for the relief(s) referred to in paragraph 1 above.
3. In the counter reply, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the Original Application before this Bench of the Tribunal. They have stated that the objection for payment of additional to and fro fare to the applicant amounting to Rs.4,175/- was raised by the Zonal Accounts Officer, C.B.D.T., Kolkata (respondent no.3) and therefore, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the O.A.
3.1 Without disputing the averments made by the applicant in the O.A. on material aspects, the respondents have resisted the claim of the applicant and stated that the family members of the applicant were brought from New Delhi to Kolkata before the actual allotment of Government accommodation and therefore, in terms of clarification no.(ii) of GI Decision VI below SR 116 (Annexure R-11 Colly., at page 38 of the counter reply), the applicant is not entitled to the additional to and fro fare as claimed by him in the Transfer T.A.Bill and therefore, there is no infirmity in the objection raised by the respondent no.3.
4. In his rejoinder reply to the respondents counter reply, the applicant has refuted the stand taken by the respondents. He has stated that paragraph 7 of the O.M.No.19030/5/86-E.IV dated 24.11.1986, on the basis of which the respondents have disallowed the additional to and fro fare to the applicant, had been amended vide Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, O.M.No.19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 6.2.2006 read with corrigendum No. 19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 22.3.2006 (Annexure IV to the rejoinder). It is, therefore, submitted by the applicant that his transfer and Transfer T.A claim having arisen after the issuance of O.M. dated 6.2.2006, he was entitled to the additional to and fro fare and the respondents were wrong in denying the same to him.
5. The respondents have not filed any additional counter to the applicants rejoinder.
6. I have perused the pleadings and heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
7. From the pleadings, the following issues arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the applicant could file the Original Application before the Principal Bench of the Tribunals?
(2) Whether the respondents were justified in disallowing the additional to and fro fare to the applicant and in showing an outstanding of Rs.4,175/- against the applicant? and
(3) To what relief the applicant is entitled?
8. Issue No.(1): For the purpose of deciding this issue, it is necessary to refer to and quote hereunder Rule 6 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 :
6. Place of filing applications.-(1) An application shall ordinarily be filed by an applicant with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction- the applicant is posted for the time being, or the cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen:
Provided that with the leave of the Chairman the application may be filed with the Registrar of the Principal Bench and subject to the orders under section 25, such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Bench which has jurisdiction over the matter.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) persons who have ceased to be in service by reason of retirement, dismissal or termination of service may at his option file an application with the Registrar of the Bench within whose jurisdiction such person is ordinarily residing at the time of filing of the application.
8.1 Admittedly, the applicant was repatriated from the Settlement Commission (IT andWT), Kolkata, and he joined his parent Department, i.e., the Department of Science ad Technology, New Delhi, in April 2011. The Original Application was filed by the applicant on 12.7.2012. It is not in dispute that the applicant was posted and working in the said Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi, when the Original Application was filed. In terms of Rule 6(1)(i) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, the OA filed by the applicant is maintainable before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, and the Principal Bench has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the same in accordance with law. Therefore, issue no.(1) is decided in favour of the applicant and against the respondents.
9. Issue No.(2): In order to consider the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary to quote hereunder the Government of Indias Decision VI below SR 116, and Ministry of Finance, Department of expenditure, O.M.No.19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 6.2.2006 and Corrigendum No. 19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 22.3.2006:
(i) Government of Indias Decision VI below SR 116:
VI. Additional to and fro fare by entitled class to Government servant on transfer.- An employee will be entitled to an additional fare by the entitled class for both onward and return journey, in addition to the normal transfer traveling allowance entitlement, if he has to leave his family behind because of non-availability of Government residential accommodation at the new place of posting.
[G.I., M.F., O.M.No. O.M.No.19030/5/86-E.IV dated 24th November, 1986; and 19th March,1987 and the 6th August, 1987.]6.2.2006 and
Clarification.- (i) In cases where the Government accommodation is available and the officer does not accept the Government accommodation allotted to him on the ground of being of lower category or for any other reason, he is not entitled to the additional fare in terms of Para 7 of O.M. dated 24-11-1986, as the Government accommodation is available and the officer had refused it.
(ii) When a Government servant brings family before actual allotment in such cases, if TA/DA has been claimed for such family members, there is no family left behind and additional fare cannot be made admissible.
(iii) At the stations where Government quarters have not been constructed, this may be treated as non-availability of Government accommodation and Government employee will be entitled to the additional fare in terms of OM dated 24.11.1986.
(G.I., M.F., U.O.No.1017/E.IV/88, dated the 12/13th May,1988 to the CandAG)
(ii) Ministry of Finance, Department of expenditure, O.M.No.19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 6.2.2006 :
Subject: Additional fare by the entitled class to Govt. servant on transfer.
As per the existing orders as contained in para 7 of O.M.No.19030/5/86-E.IV dated the 24th November 1996, an employee on transfer is entitled to an additional fare by the entitled class for both onward and return journeys, in addition to the normal transfer T.A. entitlement, if he has to leave his family behind because of non-availability of Govt. residential accommodation at the new place of posting.
2. It has come to notice that some officers are at a disadvantage who do not have a family or they have a family but their family members are not in a position to accompany the officer on transfer due to certain pre-occupations such as studies etc. As per the existing Orders such officers are not entitled to an additional to and fro fare for self though these officers require to visit their last station for bringing their household luggage etc.
3. To avoid hardship to such employees, the existing para 7 of O.M.No.19030/5/86-E.IV dated the 24th November 1996 may be read as under:-
7. Additional fare by the entitled class to Govt. servant on transfer: An employee will be entitled to an additional fare by the entitled class for both onward and return journeys, in addition to the normal transfer T.A. entitlement, if he has to leave his family/household effects because of non-availability of Govt. residential accommodation at the new place of posting. Govt. officials who could not take family members along with him/her on their second trip due to genuine reasons may also be entitled to a additional to and fro fare by the entitled class.
(iii) Corrigendum No. 19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 22.3.2006:
Subject: Additional fare by the entitled class to Govt. servant on transfer.
In para 3 of O.M.No.19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 6.2.2006 on the above subject, the following may be corrected:-
| FOR | READ |
| O.M.No.19030/5/86-E.IV dated the 24th November 1996 | O.M.No.19030/5/86-E.IV dated 24th November, 1986 |
9.1 Admittedly, the applicant and his family members proceeded from New Delhi to Kolkata in March 2007 before the transportation of the personal effects and conveyance took place. On 13.4.2007 the applicant performed the journey from Kolkata to New Delhi and back respectively on 13.4.2007 and 30.4.2007 for the purpose of bringing the personal effects and conveyance from New Delhi to Kolkata. For the said to and fro journeys, the applicant claimed Rs.4,175/- in his Transfer T.A.Bill, which was disallowed by the respondents. The applicant was allotted Government accommodation on 9.5.2007. Thus, the applicants claim for additional to and fro fare was required to be considered in terms of Paragraph 7 of Annexure to the O.M. dated 24.11.1986 as amended vide the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, O.M.No.19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 6.2.2006 read with corrigendum No. 19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 22.3.2006 Therefore, the unamended paragraph 7 of Annexure to the O.M. dated 24.11.1986 (ibid) and/or the clarification no.(ii) issued thereon should not have been pressed into service by the respondents while considering the applicants claim for additional to and fro fare. As per the amended provision, an employee is entitled to an additional fare by the entitled class for both onward and return journeys, in addition to the normal transfer T.A. entitlement, if he has to leave his family/household effects because of non-availability of Government residential accommodation at the new place of posting. The terms family/household effects mean family or household effects. It is not in dispute that when the applicant joined the Settlement Commission (IT and WT), Kolkata, on 2.4.2007, he did not bring his household effects from New Delhi to Kolkata because of non-availability of Government accommodation which he got on 9.5.2007 and he, in the later part of April 2007, performed the onward and return journeys to bring his household effects. He was, thus, very much entitled to the additional to and fro fare. Therefore, the respondents were wrong to disallow the additional to and fro fare to the applicant and to show an outstanding of Rs.4,175/- against him. The issue no.(ii) is accordingly decided in favour of the applicant and against the respondents
10. Issue No.(iii): In view of the above findings on issue no.(ii), the decision taken by the respondents disallowing the additional to and fro fare to the applicant and showing an outstanding of Rs.4,175/- against him is set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the settlement of the applicants Transfer T.A. Bill in accordance with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, O.M.No.19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 6.2.2006 read with corrigendum No. 19030/1/2006-E.IV dated 22.3.2006 and communicate their decision to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
11. In the result, the Original Application is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.