GJARAT RAJYA AROGYA KARMACHARIMAHASANGH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to Condition Nos.2 and 8 of the Government Resolution dated 12.04.2002, whereby the stipulation regarding payment of Permanent Travelling Allowance to the employees working on the field, in Health Department of Government of Gujarat, is changed to their detriment. According to the petitioners, it is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and prayer is made to quash and set aside the same.

(2.) HEARD Shri N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted that the object of granting permanent travelling allowance was to compensate the field employees for travelling, which is undertaken by them and whether they travel within 8 kelometers or beyond 8 kelometers should not be a criteria at all. With regard to condition No.2 of the impugned resolution, it is contended that there is no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by prescribing 8 kelometers as the criteria. It is further contended that so far condition no.8 of ordering recovery of the amount paid towards permanent allowance to the employees during the period from 01.02.2000 to 12.04.2002 is concerned, the same is illegal since it is not even the case of the Government that there was any fraud or misrepresentation by the employees and as per settled position of law, the recovery could not have been ordered.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and having gone through the record, I find that learned advocate for the petitioner is not right in contending that the employees who travel as part of their duty for whatever distance, should get permanent travelling allowance. If the field workers are expected to go from one place to another place, as part of their duty, they cannot claim extra compensation for the same. Further, in the affidavitinreply it is already made clear that as and when an employee is asked to travel from one place to another place, or from one town to another town, as per rules, he is entitled to travelling allowance and if within the same town he is expected to travel, which, in the opinion of Head Office, is worth granting conveyance allowance on a particular occasion, the same is being granted to employees, but the employees cannot claim that irrespective of their travelling or distance thereof, only because they are working in the field therefore they must get permanent travelling allowance. In my view, the stand of the Government is wellfounded and the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in this regard, is meritless and the same needs to be rejected and is rejected.