Ram Bharos Ram vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the respondents are present.

Present Original Application has been filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking a direction to the respondents for making the payment of TA Bills of the applicant during the period of 31.05.2014 to 30.06.2014 along with market rate of interest.

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working on the post of Station Superintendent under the respondents department and retired in the year 2015. The applicant claims that the respondents department has since not paid the amount Page 1 of 3 of leave encashment for about 30 days LAP as well as 10 days transit leave earned by him during the service period and also the TA bill between the period of 31.05.2014 to 30.06.2014 relating to refreshers of the applicant at Muzaffar Nagar and Gomo non-interlock working has not been paid to him. He had also approached this Tribunal in this regard vide O.A.No./1480/2016 which was disposed of with direction to the respondents/competent authority to decide the claim of the applicant within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and to pay the dues, if any, to the applicant within three months. After this the respondents passed an order dated 20.01.2017 wherein they have stated that the payment of LAP about 60 days had already been made to the applicant on 23.07.2014 and rest of the LAP dues of about 27 days has been paid on 07.11.2016.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that TA claimed in the O.A. has not been paid by the respondents. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the order dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure No.2) and argued that respondents themselves have admitted that TA bill was not traceable in the office. Learned counsel for the applicant also referred to the counter affidavit and argued that till date no payment has been made for the period 31.05.2014 to 30.06.2014. It is also argued that the applicant is ready and willing to supply the copy of the TA bill which was submitted earlier before the respondents.

Learned counsel for the respondents states that if a copy of the TA bill submitted earlier for the period 31.05.2014 to 30.06.2014 is made available to the respondents, payment shall be made after scrutinizing the same. It is also argued that the applicant had retired on 31.07.2014, thus, TA claimed after superannuation is wrong and cannot be allowed. Page 2 of 3

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the entire record.

In view of the submissions made on part of the respondents in respect of their willingness to consider the claim of the applicant for payment of the TA from the period 31.05.2014 to 30.06.2014 after due scrutiny of the same if the applicant submits a copy of the TA bills and the fact that the applicant is ready to supply a copy of the said bills to the respondents, the present Original Application is disposed of with the direction to the applicant to submit the TA bills before the respondents within a period of one month from the date of this order. Thereafter, on scrutinizing the bill submitted by the applicant, if the TA claimed is found to be permissible, the respondents are directed to make the payment of the TA claimed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the said copy of the TA bill along with a simple interest of 6% per annum to the applicant. It is also made clear that the respondents shall not ask the applicant to obtain any order from the competent authority regarding delay condonation.

All associated M.A.s are also disposed of accordingly. No costs.