REENA DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. J. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Devi, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent authorities in the impugned order dated 18.11.2014 (Annexure-8) in so far as the denial of reimbursement of Travelling Allowances (TA) to the petitioner in respect of her treatment taken at Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai in the month of December, 2012 is concerned.

(3.) The petitioner is an employee in the office of the Senior Architect (NEZ), Central Public Works Department (CPWD), Shillong since 1991. In the year 2016 at the time of filing this petition, the petitioner was serving in the capacity of Architect Assistant in the said office.