CHIEF DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER vs UDAY NARAYAN BHANJ DEO

THIS is an appeal by the Chief District Medical Officer, Mayurbhanj against the order dated 8.11.1999 in C.D. Case No. 36/1999 directing him to reimburse the amount spent by the complainant for going on L.T.C. with interest till the date of final payment and payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

THE complainant at the relevant time was serving as a driver under the Chief District Medical Officer, Mayurbhanj. Under the Govt. Servant''s L.T.C. Rules, with prior approval of the appellant vide order dated 27.9.1997 he availed the benefit to visit Badrinath in U.P. on his failure in securing a reservation of the seats in the train, he had to travel in a private bus of a Travel Agency. On his return from the journey he submitted the bills on 29.11.1997 for reimbursement but the appellant refused disbursement of the amount on the ground that the travel by private conveyance was impermissible. The O.P. filed a version stating therein that by virtue of Finance Department Office Memorandum No. 40453 dated 19.9.1996 this reimbursement was not permissible.

The lower Forum held that the complainant successfully proved that he being Govt. servant was entitled to the benefit under the L.T.C. Rules. Because, Ext. A i.e. the Office Memorandum according to it was a subsequent amendment of the Rules under Ext. 8 and thus the clarification to the querry under Col. 3 of the Office Memorandum No. 40453 dated 19.9.1996 was misinterpretend by the appellant. Therefore, the Forum held that applying the provisions of Rules wrongly also amounted to deficiency in service within the scope of Section 2(1)(g) of the C.P. Act.

THE main point advanced by Mr. Routray on behalf of the appellant is that the Office Memorandum dated 19.9.1996 under Col. 3 clarified that the costs of actual expenditure of the journey undertaken on L.T.C. in a private tourist bus could not be reimbursed but could be reimbursed in terms of para 6(2)(iii) of the above memorandum if the journey is undertaken in a bus operated by the O.T.D.C., State Transport Service run by other State or local bodies, only. We have examined the various clauses of the Finance Department Office Memorandum dated 16.6.1994 as mentioned above. Clause 6 of the said memorandum relates to the entitlements and is quoted as follows : "Journey by Road : Govt. assistance towards the cost of journey between places not connected by rail will be admissible to Govt. servants as under : (i) Where a public transport system with vehicle running between fixed points at regular intervals and charging fixed rates exists, the assistance is the fare actually charged by such a system for the appropriate class of accommodation of the transport system. Note : Appropriate class means as follows : (a) First Grade/Second Grade Govt. servant. By any type of bus including super deluxe, express etc. but excluding air-conditioned bus. (b) Third Grade/IV Grade Govt. servant. By ordinary bus only. The claim for travel by the express bus may also be admitted if, the journey is actually performed by such bus on account of non-availability of seats in ordinary bus. (ii) Where a public transport system as aforesaid does not exist the assistance will be limited to the actual fare paid or double the mileage allowance fixed under Rule 53 of Orissa Travelling Allowance Rules, whichever is less."

RULE 6, Sub-rule (2) deals with the permissibility of travelling to the place of interest by road where the place is not connectioned by Rail. Clause (i) of the Sub-rule (2) of that rule mentions that the journey by road is permissible by a public transport system only where such a public transport system exists and the vehicles run between fixed points at regular intervals and the assistance could be for the fare actually charged. Clause (ii) of that sub-rule makes it amply clear that where a public transport system as aforesaid does not exist, the assistance will be limited to the actual fare paid or double the mileage allowance fixed under RULE 53 of Orissa Travelling Allowance RULEs, whichever is less. Admittedly Badrinath is not directly connected by Rail from Baripada nor any public transport system is available directly from Baripada to Badrinath. In such a situation Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 will be applicable which permits the Govt. servant to travel even by a private conveyance. It is not the case of the appellant in their written version that the complainant infact did not visit Badrinath, and that he submitted false bill for reimbursement. Once the complainant has proved this fact there is no reason as to why the reimbursement should be refused which is permissible under Rules. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal. However, we find that the Forum is not correct in awarding compensation of Rs. 5,000/- in favour of the complainant. There is no material on record to show that the appellant intentionally harassed the complainant. He was only interpreting, though wrongly, the rules we have quoted above. Therefore, we set aside that part of the order directing payment of compensation. But the complainant is entitled to interest on the money kept with the Govt., for no fault of his. The interest should be calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the amount of actual fare paid by the complainant and this shall be from the date of submission of his bills for payment. In the result, the appeal fails and dismissed as such. The lower Forum order is confirmed with modification. No costs. Dr. Arati Mohanty, Member-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Appeal dismissed. Order modified.