M.S. Sethuramaraja vs The State of Tamil Nadu, The Commissioner and The District Collector

K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.—The petitioner seeks for a direction to the first respondent to sanction the travelling allowance and daily

allowance as per the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 616, dated 05.11.1993 issued by the Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection

Department. The case of the petitioner is that he is the President of Virudhunagar District Consumer Centre and is continuing in such position from

the year 1984. The petitioner was appointed in the District Council as one of its four members. The 3rd respondent is the Appointing Authority.

The petitioner is non official member of the said Council. Every year six meetings were conducted, either by the 3rd respondent or by the 2nd

respondent to discuss about the matters relating to Consumer Welfare Protection and Public Distribution System. Under G.O.Ms. No. 616, dated

05.11.1993 issued by the first respondent, the members of the said Council are entitled to get travelling allowance and daily allowance for

attending every meeting. The petitioner had attended 90 meetings in the past 15 years, however, he was not paid the travelling allowance and daily

allowance as contemplated under the said Government Order. When the petitioner requested the 2nd respondent for sanctioning of the same, the

petitioner was informed that fund was not sanctioned by the first respondent for paying such travelling and daily allowances. Therefore, the present

writ petition is filed before this court.

Though notice of motion was ordered on 08.03.2010, till this day, no counter is filed by the respondents. However, the learned Government

Advocate appearing for the respondents, on instruction, submitted that though administrative sanction was given for payment of travelling and daily

allowances to the non-official members of the District Council, the same could not be paid as no proper financial sanction has been made by the

Government so far.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

The claim of the petitioner is that he is entitled to get travelling allowance and daily allowances for attending every District Council meeting, as

per the G.O.Ms. No. 616, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection, dated 05.11.1993.

A perusal of the said G.O. shows that the travelling allowance bill shall be paid from out of the State funds and the District Collectors and the

Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection, are authorised to draw and disburse the travelling allowance and daily allowance to the

non official members. When the said order of the Government clearly contemplates payment of travelling and daily allowances to the non-official

members out of the State funds, the petitioner cannot be denied such payment only on the reason that proper financial sanction has not been made

so far. It is for the Government to make the financial sanction then and there, especially when they have passed G.O. No. 616, 05.11.1993

authorising the District Collectors, and the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to draw and disburse the said allowances to the non-official members.

It is seen that the said post of member in District Council is non-remunerative and honorary post. Therefore, the respondents cannot expect the

members to spend money out of their own pocket to attend the every Council meeting. The basic requirement is to provide travelling allowance

and daily allowances for those non-official members, so that their presence in the Council meeting is made certain. If such allowances are not paid,

it would only defeat the object of having such Council, as the members may loose interest in attending the meeting, when they are forced to spend

the money out of their own pockets towards their travelling and other daily expenses while attending those Council meetings. Therefore, the reason

given by the respondents in not disbursing the allowances to the petitioner cannot be justified, especially when they do not dispute the right of the

petitioner to claim such allowances under the said G.O.Ms. No. 616, dated 05.11.1993.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find every justification in the claim made by the petitioner in this writ petition. However, the

petitioner had made an averment in his affidavit that he had attended 90 meetings for the past 15 years and had not furnished any details and the

total claim made by him towards the travelling and daily allowances for attending those 90 meetings. Therefore, I only direct the petitioner to make

a fresh representation to the respondents with all the details of his claim, within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a coy of this order

and on receipt of such representation, the respondents shall consider and disburse the claim of the petitioner, within a period of six weeks

thereafter, in the light of the order passed herein.

It is needless to say that the respondents are entitled to verify the correctness of the statement to be made by the petitioner in his fresh

representation and thereafter, to arrive at the amount payable to the petitioner and pass orders accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of in the

above terms. No costs.