1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Rajendra Goyal Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Others S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 7262/2006 ......... Date of Order : 10/09/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Anil Bhandari for the petitioner. Mr. Jagdish Vyas for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 25.09.2006 and 27.11.2006 and a direction to the respondents to place the petitioner as Cashier at Branch Office- III, Jodhpur and to grant him functional allowance w.e.f. 01.09.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is senior most Assistant and he was allowed to 2 function as a Cashier with the functional allowance which subsequently came to be revised and lastly he was granted functional allowance at the rate of Rs. 515/-, however, by order Annex.5 dated 25.09.2006 the petitioner was asked to hand over the cash charge to Shri Madhusudan Tehliyani and from the date of the order the cash charge has been handed over to Shri Madhusudan Tehliyani and the functional allowance on the post of Cashier which was available to the petitioner came to be stopped. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the functional allowance is part of the salary and therefore, his salary cannot be reduced. It is further contended that certain persons with the respondent insurance company, whose names have been mentioned in para 15 of the writ petition, are not functioning as cashier, yet the functional allowance in respect of those persons has been protected by the respondent insurance company. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once the functional allowance as cashier is granted, it cannot be withdrawn even if the petitioner does not handle the cash. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as per the policy decision taken by the respondent insurance company vide Annex.3 such a functional allowance of course is available to the person who works to handle the cash but there is policy of job rotation within the same station and in 3 view of the policy of job rotation as envisaged under the Policy Annex.3 under the Head “Job Rotation (within the same station), an employee can be transferred from one branch to another branch and on transfer under such policy, there is a provision more particularly clause 5.9 which provides that an employee transferred under the policy (excluding request transfer and/ or posting on promotion) shall be entitled to the benefits as provided for under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 18 of the Scheme, in addition to the transfer benefits as per TE Rules: provided that no other benefit other than these benefits shall be available to him. Sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 18 of the Scheme provides that every employee shall be liable to be transferred from one department to another in the same office, from one office to another office in the same station and to meet the requirement or need of the Company or the corporation, as the case may be, from one station to another in terms of the Transfer and Mobility Policy as approved by the Board of the Company or Corporation, and amended from time to time. Clause (c) of sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 18 provides that an employee so transferred from one station to another shall be paid an allowance, called the Disturbance Allowance, at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month during the period of posting on such transfer (not being request transfer, nor posting on promotion). Besides, House Rent Allowance and/or City Compensatory 4 Allowance, which the employee was drawing before such transfer, shall be protected during the period of transfer. On the strength of this clause, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the cash functional allowance is not protected on a transfer. The order Annex.7 dated January 28, 1991 provides allocation of cash allowance. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the senior most person on the clerical cadre should be allowed to handle cash (excluding Sr. Asstt./ Stenographer/ Programmer). It is further contended that the functional allowance once allowed should not be withdrawn unilaterally unless there is specific case of financial irregularity committed by the concerned employee with the facts and figures. By order Annex.8 dated 28.6.2000 it has been made clear that irrespective of the functional designations, the senior- most employee in the Assistant's grade should be considered for cash handling allowance subject to satisfactory leave record, vigilance record, integrity, physical and Mental fitness. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the representations filed by the petitioner for grant of functional allowance came to be considered and the Branch Manager by order Annex.11 intimated the petitioner that various representations filed by the petitioner for cash allowance have been taken up with the Regional Office and Regional Office 5 advised that the petitioner employee went to Branch Office-III under Job Rotation/ Transfer and Mobility Policy, his functional allowance is not being protected under the scheme. Further, Branch Office- III is already having regular cashier as such he would continue to work as cashier. The Notification Annex.2 dated 21st December, 2005 under the Caption “II. Functional Allowances”: Clause (b) of Special Functional Allowance it has been provided that with effect from the 1st day of August, 2002, an employee in the scale of Assistant (or Senior Assistant, in the event of non-availability of Assistant) engaged in handling cash in an office, as his regular and main function, where the amount of cash transactions during a calendar month is ordinarily Rs. 25,000/- or more, shall be paid a Special Functional Allowance @ Rs.515/- per month. Thus, by Annex.2, the special functional allowance has been made available to the persons handling the cash in the office of the respondent insurance company. From the various orders and policies and documents discussed herein above, it is clear that the respondents have the policy of job rotation, the policy of transfer within the same station and grant of functional allowance when the employee of the rank of assistant is assigned the work of handling the cash. The petitioner was working at the Divisional Office and he has been transferred to Branch Office-III, Jodhpur and on transfer to Branch Office-III, Jodhpur, the person on cash was already 6 working as has been stated in order Annex.11 and as per the policy, if a person is working in the cash section he shall not be dislodged so long as he is not divested from this function vide Annex.6. Annex.6 provides that Assistant (T) will be assigned this function only in the absence of Assistant (C) in a particular office. Once however Assistant (T) has been assigned this function, new induction of Assistant (C) in that office will not by itself dislodge that Assistant (T) from that function so long as he is not divested of this function for some other reason like his promotion or transfer or the like. According to learned counsel for the respondents since in the branch office-III there had been already a regular cashier handing the cash, as such he would continue to work as cashier in view of order Annex.11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in para 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that one Pradeep Sharma who was working as cashier in the Branch Office-III was transferred and relieved and the petitioner was to take charge from him and the said Pradeep Sharma handed over the charge of cashier to the petitioner. However, no formal order was issued regarding taking over charge of cashier by the petitioner and this fact has not been controverted by the respondents in reply to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to para 8 and 10 of the reply to the writ petition. In 7 para 8, it has been stated that the transfer orders were issued as per the terms and conditions as contained in the Transfer and Mobility Policy. Before the petitioner was transferred to Branch Office-III, Shri Pradeep Sharma and Madhusudan Tehliyani were already working as cashier in the Branch Office-III, Jodhpur and Shri Madhusudan was working in Branch Office-IV of the respondent company and he was functioning as cashier from 2000. On account of merger of branch office-IV into Branch Office-III, in the year 2006, the service of the Madhusudan Tehliyani were shifted to Branch Office-III, Jodhpur and his functional allowance were protected. Shri Madhusudan Tehliyani was already working as Cashier in the Branch Office-III on account of merger of Branch Office-IV into Branch Office-III and therefore, charge of cashier in the Branch Office-III Jodhpur was handed over to the petitioner for time being due to office exigency for a short period and not on permanent basis. From the averments made in the writ petition and the documents annexed therewith it is clear that there is a provision for special functional allowance granted by the respondent insurance company to the assistants and in a branch to a senior most assistant, however, there is a policy of Job Rotation as also Transfer and Mobility Policy by which an employee can be transferred from one branch to another branch and in that sequence, the petitioner has also been transferred 8 from Divisional Office to Branch Office-III, Jodhpur and at Branch Office-III, Jodhpur a person who was transferred from Branch Office-IV to Branch Office-III has been handling the cash and the petitioner has not been assigned the work of cash handling as the person already in the branch has been handling the cash and in view of the policy decision discussed above, a person cannot be dislodged even on coming of new incumbent in the branch. So far as the averment made in para No.15 of the writ petition is concerned, no such material has been placed on record substantiating this contention raised and more so this fact has been denied by the respondents in their reply regarding protecting the special functional allowance and without there being sufficient material as to whether the persons whose names are mentioned in para No.15 of the writ petition, their functional allowance has been protected or not or whether they have been functioning on cash handling work or not, in absence of any such material, it cannot be concluded that the petitioner has been discriminated. In the circumstances, therefore, I find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp