Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited vs Er. Bimal Kumar Kaushal

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

A bare perusal of the impugned order passed by the erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') would reveal that the same does not touch upon the controversy in question and the Tribunal has gone completely astray by not touching upon the actual merits of the case. The only reasoning given by the Tribunal for allowing the petition is contained in paras 4 and 5 of the order, which reads as under:-

"4. The applicant had approached the respondent for grant of travelling allowance and fees vide Annexure RA-I under the provisions of Rule 61 and 62 of leave rules:

"61. Travelling Allowance during study leave

A Government servant to whom study leave has been granted shall not ordinarily be paid Travelling Allowance but the Present may in exceptional circumstances, sanction the payment of such allowance.

Cost of fees for study

A Government servant to whom study leave has been granted shall ordinarily be required to meet the cost of fees paid for the study, but in exceptional cases, the President may sanction the grant of such fees.

Provided that in no case shall the cost of fees be paid to a Government servant who is in receipt of scholarship or stipend from whatever source or who is permitted to receive or retain, in addition to his leave salary, any remuneration in respect of part-time employment.

It is manifest that it is permissible in such a case to grant travelling allowance and cost of fees. However, the respondent did not communicate the decision taken. This blame cannot be put on the applicant for non-payment of fees demanded. The applicant had submitted MBA post graduate certificate and assignments to the authorities. Once the respondent had considered and sanctioned leave, U turn cannot be taken that recovery of 2/3rd of the amount is being affected. There was also no basis for grant of study leave of 81 days for completion of 60 credits for certificate course on notional basis against sanction of study leave of 265 days. The action of the respondent in recovering the amount was impermissible."

As observed above, the Tribunal has not at all dealt upon the defense of the petitioner and being the Court of first instance, it was required to go into the relative merits of not only the case of the petitioner, but also of the respondent.

Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dated 11th January, 2018, passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.4143 of 2015, titled Er. Bimal Kumar Kaushal Versus Himachal Pradesh Electricity Board Ltd., is ordered to be set aside. O.A. No.4143 of 2015 is directed to be registered as CWP and placed for admission before the appropriate Bench. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.