DAHYABHAI MOHANBHAI PRAJAPATI Vs. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER appearing in person has challenged the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad dated 25th July 2011 passed in Original Application No.167 of 2000. The petitioner is a retired employee of BSNL. He was in litigation with the employer. His case is that after the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedbad allowed one of his petitions, the department challenged the same before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition upon which, the department carried the matter further to the Supreme Court. The petitioner received notice from the Supreme Court for remaining present in person or through his advocate. The petitioner was in service at that time. For about 4 to 5 times, he had to remain present before the Supreme Court in such proceedings. He claimed TA/DA for such purpose. On one such occasion, TA was sanctioned. On later occasions, he was granted advance. However, when he submitted his bills, objections were raised and bills were not sanctioned. He, therefore, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad by filing O.A. No.167 of 2000 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

(2.) HAVING heard the petitioner in person and the counsel for BSNL, we do not see that the Tribunal has committed any error. Admittedly, the petitioner was the respondent in the appeal before the Supreme Court in his personal capacity. Rules pointed out to us, particularly S.R.154 and 153A pertained to grant of TA/DA when the Government servant appears in court proceedings to give evidence in a case to which the Government is a party or in a departmental inquiry held by a properly constituted authority. It is true that instructions dated 8.1.59 below S.R.154 do envisage granting of TA under certain circumstances other than those mentioned above. One of them being, that if the proceedings instituted by the Government against the employee conclude in favour of the Government servant, the Government may if it is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the Government servant was subjected to strain of the proceedings without proper justification, reimbursement of the whole or reasonable portion of the expenses could be made. However, in the present case, no such order was passed by the Government. The petitioner's claim for TA/DA for defending his own personal case before the Supreme Court cannot be granted. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief is vacated.