Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.J.VARGHESE versus THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.J.VARGHESE v. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT - WP(C) No. 32001 of 2006(I) [2007] RD-KL 282 (4 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32001 of 2006(I)

1. P.J.VARGHESE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES

3. THE DISTRICT FOOD INSPECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAVIKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :04/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 32001 OF 2006

Dated this the 4th January, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner in his capacity as the Food Inspector attached to Mananthavady Cirle in Wayanad district had undertaken tours and journeys for official purposes in due discharge of his function as Food Inspector. He had preferred T.A claims for the official journeys undertaken by him. The bills were however not honoured by the treasury and no payment has been made to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved he has filed this writ petition.

2. Govt. Pleader was directed to seek instruction as to why T.A bills were not encashed despite recommendation by the third respondent-District Food Inspector. On instructions it is submitted that bills could not be encashed for want of allotment of funds. It is further submitted that steps have been taken to see that whatever amount is due to the petitioner towards T.A claims is paid, as expeditiously as possible.

3. Heard both sides. It is not a case where the respondents have taken up the contention that the petitioner is not entitled for travelling allowance. The bills have been recommended by the third respondent. Hence, further scrutiny, if any, required shall be done and WPC 32001/2006 2 the actual amount due to the petitioner worked out and bills presented to the treasury for encashment without delay. The amount due shall be disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. Since claims from 2003 onwards are pending payment, it is necessary in the interest of justice, that a time limit shall be fixed for completing the above exercise. Hence this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to see that T.A claims of the petitioner are settled and amount due as per rules disbursed to him within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


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.