O.A. No. 53 of 2008. Case: 1. Dr. P. Anithakumari, Senior Scientist, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 2. K.K.Sudhanandan, Technical Officer, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 3. Sumithra Nambiar, Assistant, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 4. E.R.Asokan, Artist Cum Photographer, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 5. P.Saraswathy Amma, Technical Assistant, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 6. Sunny Thomas, Technical Assistant, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 7. V.P.Joy, Technical Assistant, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 8. V.K.Vijayan, Supporting Staff Grade Iv, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 9. C. Sukumaran, Supporting Staff Grade I, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 10. C.Sundaran, Supporting Staff Grade I, Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, Kayamkulam; 11. K.Ravi, Supporting Staff Grade I, .... Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | O.A. No. 53 of 2008 |
| Counsel | P.V.Mohanan, P.Santhosh Kumar |
| Judges | Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member) & K. Noorjehan (Administrative Member) |
| Issue | Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 142 |
| Judgement Date | March 11, 2009 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
This case poses an interesting question. The respondents earlier granted the Transport allowances to the applicants in this OA on the basis of the measurement scaled by them between the Portico to the Main Office Building and the respective residences of the applicants which ranged between 1020-1050 metres. Transport allowance is admissible if the distance between the place of work and the residence is not less than 1 km. The applicants thus, enjoyed the transport allowance from 01-08-1997 onwards and in 2001, when the statutory audit made certain objections that the distance should have been measured between the main gate of the office building and the main gate of the residential complex, in which case, the distance between the place of work and residence being less than one kilometre, the applicants would not be entitled to the Transport Allowance, the respondents on verification as aforesaid and on finding that the distance between place of work (main Gate) and the residence (main gate to the complex) was found to be short by a few metres to one kilometre, suspended the grant of such transport allowance since 1st January 2001 and now they have resorted to recovery of the amount of transport allowance paid to the applicants. Annexures A-1, A-4, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-17 and A-18 refer. Challenge is against the decision to recover the amount so calculated.
-
Respondents contest the O.A. According to them the total extent of CPCRI Regional Station, Kayankulam is 59.74 acres. In October 2001, a Tachometric Measurement was taken from the PORTICO of the Main Building to the individual quarters of the employees through the Main Gate and the distance recorded as 1020 meters to 1050 meters. The distance ought to have been measured from the Main Gate of the Office Campus to the Gate in the Residential Quarters campus or from the South Gate to the Residential Campus Gate, as per the opinion of the Special Audit party and the distance, if so measured, comes to within one kilometre. Hence, the applicants having been paid the Transport Allowance, to which they are not entitled, the same is sought to be recovered.
-
Counsel for the applicant argued that it was the respondents who measured the distance earlier and being satisfied that the distance involved is not less than one kilometre, had sanctioned the Transport Allowance. That distance is the correct distance. As such, just because audit party had different opinion, the respondents cannot be allowed to recover the transport allowance granted to the applicants. Counsel for the applicant also submitted that as per the VI Pay Commission Recommendation, the requirement of minimum distance of one kilometre for drawal of transport allowance has been done away with. He has also relied upon the decision by the Apex Court in Babulal Jain v. State of M.P.,(2007) 6 SCC 180, wherein the Apex Court has directed the respondents to refund the sum recovered in the case of the appellant therein as such excess payment was not on the basis of any statement of the appellant.
-
Counsel for the respondents submitted that audit report is clear and when the distance is measured from the main Gate of the office Building to the Main Gate of the residential complex, the same being less than one kilometer, the applicants were not entitled to draw the Transport Allowance and hence, recovery is fully justified.
-
Arguments have been heard and documents perused. At the outset in so far as the decision in the case of Babu Lal Jain (supra) relied upon by the counsel for the applicants, it is to be noted that the Apex Court has held therein as under:
18. We, therefore, while directing the respondents to refund the said sum of Rs 22,000 to the appellant herein, also direct that his retirement benefit shall be calculated as if he had reached the age of superannuation only as an Accountant on the refixed pay and not on the scale of pay of the Election Supervisor. We issue this direction in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution Of India, 1950. (Emphasis supplied)
-
The above decision would not help the applicant...
To continue reading
Request your trial