Nistar Minz Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No. 13 of 2014 ..... Nistar Minz … … Petitioner -V e r s u s- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand 3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Ranchi 4. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Ranchi ... ... Respondents … CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH … For the Petitioner : - M/s Rajiv Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent : - Mr. Suraj Kumar, JC to GP-VI … 05/01.05.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is in review against the judgment dated 10.03.2014 passed in W. P. (S) No. 1493 of 2013, which is quoted hereinunder:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner retired from the substantive post of Deputy Director, Soil Conservation, Ranchi while holding the charge of Director, Agriculture at the time of retirement on 28.02.2009. The petitioner was given additional charge of post of Director, Agriculture vide notification dated 10.03.2007, Annexure-9 to the rejoinder. In the present case, his grievance is on account of rejection of air travel bills vide communication dated 27.07.2010 memo no. 2362, Annexure-6 issued by the respondent- Department of Agriculture and Sugarcane Development, Government of Jharkhand. As per the impugned letter, the petitioner was not in the substantive scale of pay of Rs. 16400/- and above at the time of undertaking such air travel as he was drawing salary in the basic scale of Rs. 12675/-. The incumbent of scale lower than Rs. 16400/- are not entitled air travel as per the Circular Dated 28.08.2002 except in special circumstances with the permission of the Chief Secretary of the State. It is submitted that the petitioner has not taken permission from the Competent Authority before travelling by air, which is the reason for its rejection. As per the petitioner, he was holding the charge of Director and discharging the responsibility of the Director, Agriculture during the said period, which required frequent travel outside Ranchi to Delhi. It is submitted by referring to Annexure-1 that the departmental Secretary have permitted him to attend the said seminars or conferences or workshops indicated in such letters at Delhi. There had been sanction of the competent authority to undertake such travel since petitioner was discharging the post of Director during the relevant point of time. Therefore, the respondents are not justified in refusing to sanction air travel bills which he undertook at the relevant point of time on the ground that he was not drawing the basic pay of Rs. 16400/-. He has further referred to Annexure- B to the counter affidavit i.e. circular dated 04.01.2005 which modified the earlier circular of 28.08.2002 and permitted such air travel outside State on the permission being granted by the Departmental Secretary. It is submitted that the said travels were undertaken by the petitioner in relation to the exigency of the departmental work. On the contrary the respondents have stated that the air travel of the petitioner was unnecessary and unauthorized being without the sanction of the competent authority. Even the departmental Secretary did not authorize the petitioner to travel by air as he has tried to make vide Annexure-A. He had only granted permission to petitioner to attend the said seminars, conferences & workshops outside the State at Delhi. It is further submitted that unauthorized frequent air travel of the petitioner is subject matter of vigilance enquiry being P.E. 20/09 and an information has been sought by the Vigilance Bureau vide letter dated 19.12.2009 as also by the subsequent letter dated 10.07.2011 annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-C series. It is submitted that the petitioner on the date of retirement has submitted travel bills, which has been disapproved after proper consultation with the Finance Department being contrary to the TA Rules and also departmental circulars. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The entitlement to undertake air travel for an officer of the State Government is permissible if he is having the scale of Rs. 16,400/- and above. The petitioner admittedly was holding the post of Deputy Director, Soil Conservation and drawing the pay of Rs. 12675/- at the relevant point of time, though he was given additional charge to the post of Director (Agriculture). Even then, it appears that the officers having the lower scale of pay are permitted to undertake air travel only after the permission of the Chief Secretary and by the subsequent circular dated 04.01.2005, which has been annexed to the counter affidavit, by the permission of departmental secretary. Perusal of Annexure-1 series, which has been evidenced, shows that permissions were not given to travel by air rather they were simple endorsement to participate in the workshops/seminars outside the State at Delhi. It further appears that the petitioner's frequent air travel has been noticed by the Vigilance Bureau, which is being investigated and enquiry is being made from the department. Therefore, in the aforesaid state of facts and reasons discussed hereinabove, the impugned order dated 27.07.2010 has been rightly passed by refusing the claim of the petitioner for sanction of air travel having not fulfilled the conditions. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.” The reasons for seeking a review as has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been pursuing a claim for grant of promotion to the post of Director w.e.f. 10.03.2007 and Joint Director w.e.f. 27.10.1999 in W. P. (S) No. 1143 of 2009, which though still pending, but if the same is allowed in his favour, the petitioner would automatically come in the scale of Rs. 16,400/- which would entitle him to air travels undertaken in the capacity of In- charge Director, Agriculture at the relevant point of time. It is submitted that though at the time when the writ petition was decided admittedly he was not holding the substantive post of Director in the scale of Rs. 16,400/- or above and the writ petition being W. P. (S) No. 1143 of 2009 was also pending at that point of time when the claim for reimbursement of the air travel bills have been rejected by the judgment impugned, in case, the petitioner succeeds in W. P. (S) No. 1143 of 2009, the authorities may not reconsider the whole issue. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had brought this fact in reply to the counter affidavit that the W. P. (S) No. 1143 of 2009 is pending for the instant reliefs. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the writ petition was decided on the facts existing on the date which have not changed even thereafter. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their submission and also taken into account the facts, reasons and conclusions drawn in the judgment impugned herein. Though the plea of the petitioner does not make the judgment amenable to review under any of the grounds available for review as such, but it can very well be observed that if the petitioner succeeds in the writ petition being W. P. (S) No. 1143 of 2009, which is said to be pending and is granted promotion to the post of Director and given the requisite scale from the anterior date, the instant judgment impugned would not come in the way of the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for reimbursement of air travel allowances. Such reconsideration, however, would also be guided by all other attendant factors. However, this Court does not find any grounds to review the judgment in question. Accordingly, the instant review petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/