1. This application is filed on 04.07.2006. The relief sought is for a direction to the respondents to pay the applicant TA/DA in connection with his visit from Delhi to Bombay and to Delhi in response to the letter of second respondent dated 21.5.1996. As the claim possibly might be barred to be adjudicated under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, a Miscellaneous Application has been filed for condonation of delay (MA 1127/2006).
2. We had heard the applicant in person. Mr. Gautam Godara, who had appeared on behalf of the respondents explained to us the stand of the Government with reference to the counter affidavit filed dated 07.02.2007 opposing the claim. The respondents have further contended that sufficient and cognizant reasons for condonation of delay are also not made out.
3. According to the applicant, while he was under suspension, he had been served with an order dated 21.05.1996 (Annexure A-6) issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Government of Maharashtra advising that his suspension is revoked and he is to report to the Government of Maharashtra immediately. The applicant submits that he had forthwith set out to Bombay and had reported on 30.05.1996. According to him, he had expended Rs. 3549/- for air ticket, and had been continuously there at Bombay for one month and in the meanwhile had requested for reimbursement of the amounts spent for his journey and also had requested for sufficient advance payment, for his daily needs but nothing had come, and had thereupon went back to Delhi, which was his Headquarters and simultaneously had sent a letter intimating about these details, copy of which is marked as Annexure A-12. He had indicated that under the available circumstances it was neither feasible nor desirable for him to further extend his stay at Bombay.
According to him, there was no proper response, and the legal proceedings in which he has been engaged had taken much toll, and as a matter of fact, the order of reinstatement itself had been set aside by this Tribunal, in due course and, therefore, the delay in making the present application requires to be condoned as it was not due to his laches or default. He has put up his claim for DA as he was entitled to such benefits as per conditions of service and these could not have been withheld.4. The respondents, however, submit that the claim is not maintainable.
It is submitted that in OA 2415/2005, on 25.9.2006, of course, the order of reinstatement, which had preceded Annexure A-6 had been set aside on technical grounds. But, however, that did not give the applicant any fresh cause of action. Counsel also points out that reinstatement order dated 13.5.1996 is available on records as Annexure A-5 and full and factual details had been given which prompted the Government of Maharashtra to revoke the order of suspension but at the instance of the applicant himself, this order had been got set aside and he could not have taken advantage of his own movements, as has been attempted to. It is pointed out that the orders in the later OA had come almost a decade later and it could not be tagged on for substantiating the claim, as urged in this OA. The applicant had been directed to report for duty and, as a matter of fact, a posting order had been issued to him, on 07.06.1996 (Annexure A-8), but immediately thereafter on 11.6.1996, he had informed his disinclination to join duty, and was not, therefore, available for work. Further, the applicant had no authority to claim airfare unless the competent authority had given him such sanction. His Headquarters had been shifted to Delhi in deference to his request and this did not, however, justify him to claim airfare for his alleged long travel. These are the submissions made by the respective sides.
5. Mr. Vijay Kumar, who appeared in person, had submitted that since the reinstatement order had been set aside, the order whereby he was directed to report for work consequently also has become non-est and a nullity. However, he submits that for the said reason alone the respondents cannot ignore his actual travel and claim for DA, since it could not be disputed that he had obeyed the order and also incurred the expenditure.
6. We feel that the claim as such is highly belated and as a matter of fact the sustainability of the claims as highlighted should have been presented by him before the Tribunal when OA 2415/2005 had been agitated. Adjudication of such a claim when the transfer order itself is said to be non-existing, may lead to absurdities. We have to hold that the claim to be adjudicated in the present proceedings is far too stale. On the merits also, we are inclined to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the respondents that the claim had no legal basis. Excepting to report himself pursuant to Annexure A-6, the applicant was not prepared to join duty in the post offered to him. May be in later proceedings, the reinstatement order had been set aside, and the order may relate back, but that is no reason, we feel, for entertainment of an application, which should have been agitated with some expedition.
7. We see from the suspension order issued to the applicant dated 26.5.1988 (Annexure A-1) that his Headquarters was to remain at Kolhapur and he was not expected to leave the station without prior permission of the competent authority. This was definitely for the reason that while under suspension, the applicant was working at Kolhapur. However, we see when there was a representation forthcoming from the applicant that he had to be at New Delhi till the final hearing of his writ petition pending in the Supreme Court, the Government had agreed to his request to change his Headquarters from Kolhapur to New Delhi. It was only to help his cause, but this could not have by itself resulted in a position that the Government was answerable for his passage up and down. Such expenditure should not have been refundable to public exchequer. He had refused to accept the offer of posting, and had gone back to Delhi after spending a few weeks at Bombay without attending the Government work. His submission by Annexure A-9 dated 11.6.1996 was to withdraw his appointment as Deputy Secretary and permit him to proceed to New Delhi for prosecuting his court cases. Therefore, in respect of stay at Bombay and return journey, it could not have been possible for him to legally claim TA and DA.8. The application is dismissed both on merit as well as on the issue of maintainability. Parties to suffer their respective costs.