Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SURESH SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Suresh Singh & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 37645 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 8922 (3 May 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay TA and DA and other benefits to the petitioners in pursuance of the standing orders dated 20.5.1993 and 28.2.1985.  Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the  respondents not to stop T.A. and DA and other benefits in pursuance of the order dated 20.7.2002.

The petitioners, who are working as Civil Police have been deputed under the orders of the competent authority to do the duty at Airport Authority of India at Varanasi.  In Para 5 of the said writ petition it has been stated that the petitioners as well as other police men have been hired by the Airport Authority of India for the purposes of Security of the Airport.  The petitioners have submitted bills for payment of TA and DA to the competent authority and the same was produced to the Airport authority.  

It has been stated by the petitioners that the Airport authority has made  payment to the respondents i.e. respondent No.3 but the payment has not been made to the petitioners only on the basis of objection raised by the auditors, then the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

While entertaining the writ petition on 9.9.2002, the learned Standing Counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit and also directed to seek the instructions from the Police Headquarter U.P. Allahabad.

A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents.  In Para 4 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioners were appointed at Babatpur Airport, Varanasi and the Additional  Superintendent of Police (Rural), Varanasi  vide its order dated 14.1.2002 clarified that due to absence of residence for employee of LIU unit and Civil Police, the Headquarter has been made at Varanasi. But in the said order it has not been provided that they shall be provided T.A. & D.A.  The S.S.P Varanasi vide it order dated 20.5.1993 has clarified that due to non-availability of the official accommodation at Babatpur, but they have not been provided any TA and DA for travelling to Babatpur to Varanasi city.

 The petitioners submit that earlier it has been paid but due to the objection raised by the auditor in spite of the fact that amount for which the petitioners are entitled has been paid by the Airport authority to the authority under whom the petitioners are working, but the same has not been paid.

I have heard learned counsel or the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record.

As various questions regarding the entitlement of TA and DA, which have been claimed by the petitioners is involved as such, this question cannot be decided by this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  In  such a situation, it will be appropriate that the present writ petition be decided with a liberty to the petitioners to make a detailed and comprehensive representation to the respondent No.3 within a period of one month.  If such representation is filed by the petitioners, regarding the entitlement, the respondent No.3 is directed to consider the same according to law and will pass  detailed and reasoned order preferably within a period of two months thereafter. If the respondent No.3 comes to the conclusion that they are entitled for the amount, which they have claimed the same may be paid to the petitioners.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

3.5.2006

SKD/37645/2002


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.