Janaki Ballav Mohanty vs Union Of India & Ors.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

By filing this Original Application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on 18.07.2026, the Applicant seeks direction to the Respondents to trace, verify and process the pending TA Bills submitted by him during his tenure at Dhanbad [2002-2010] and accordingly release the admissible amount towards TA Bills with 12% interest on delay in sanctioning of TA claims, INTER ALIA, alleging that he submitted TA Bills between 2002 and 2010, for the tours undertaken while working as Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad, but the same could be paid to him despite repeated reminders. While the matter stood thus, on 31^st January, 2020, he retired from service on reaching the age of superannuation, as Deputy Welfare Commissioner (Central), a Grade IV Officer, Dhuliyan in the District of Mushidabad (WB). In letter dated 7/8^th January, 2021 the Regional Labour Commissioner (C ), Dhanbad intimated him that the TA Bills were not traceable in the office records and, therefore, could not be processed. It is stated that thereafter, he submitted representations on 08.08.2025, 05.09.2025 and 13.11.2025 and sought information under RTI Act, 2005, but all his requests went in vein. It is stated that since as per the Rules, he is entitled to the claim raised by him but not paid, in the said circumstances, there being no other way out, he filed this OA.

Upon receipt of copy of the OA, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that according to the Applicant he submitted TA Bills in the year 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010 for the tours undertaken by him while working Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Dhanbad. He retired from service on 31.01.2020. But the entire OA is completely silent as to what prevented him not to take the shelter of the Court of Law, if at all he undertaken any such tour after due approval of the competent authority and submitted any such TA claims, as raised by him now, after such long lapse of time. It is stated that the applicant did not produce any piece of evidence showing undertaking of the tours and submissions of TA Bills for the year 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010. According to him, the applicant is trying to gain an advantage without having a specific, valid reason or supporting text, that too, after long lapse of time, without any plausible explanation for such delay. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of this OA.

After giving a hearing in the matter, opportunity was allowed to the applicant to produce any such evidence that he had at all undertaken the tours while he was in service and submitted TA Bills for the years 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2010 but he failed to show any such evidence except referring to his representations which he had submitted and enclosed to this OA; wherefrom no such magnitude can be shown relating to undertaking the tour and submissions of TA claims. Hence, we are of the considered view that the applicant sought relief from a phantom problem, much like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.

In the result, this OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.