IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 1538 of 2008(G) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.GOPINATHAN, SENIOR MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.LAL GEORGE, SMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGE. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, 7, BHIKAIJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI - 110006. 2. CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, HEAD OFFICE, BHIKAIJI CAMA PALACE, NEW DELHI - 110006. 3. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADVS. MR.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, SMT.PRIYA VIJAYAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.1538/2008-G: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF TRAVEL CONCESSION RULES. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF INDIAN AIR LINES TIME TABLE. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF TA/DA RULES. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 20/12/2006. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE SENIOR MANAGER DTD. 15/01/2007. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN DTD. 24/07/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE CHAIRMAN DTD. 23/10/2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).1538/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Senior Manager in the Punjab National Bank and he is currently stationed at the Regional office at Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner, a native of Kozhikode, was earlier posted at the Regional office, Rajkot in Gujarat. Petitioner’s wife was working as Administrative Officer in the Divisional Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India at Rajkot. Later during September, 2006, the petitioner was transferred to Kerala and posted at Thiruvananthapuram. He had requested for a posting in Kozhikode which is his native place. But his wife had to remain at Rajkot till May, 2007, when she was also transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Division. Petitioner availed a Leave Travel Concession facility in accordance with the LTC rules prevailing in the respondent Bank, and visited Darjeeling in October, 2006. He along with his wife had travelled from Thiruvananthapuram to Darjiling and back to Thiruvananthapuram by air by availing the LTC W.P.(C).1538/2008 2 facility. His wife had to remain at Rajkot till May, 2007 when she was also transferred to Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, if the family is not residing with him at the place of posting, family can travel from the place of domicile to join spouse enjoying Leave Travel Concession facility and return back to the place of residence. In the present case, the claim for the charges incurred for the travel by the petitioner's wife from Rajkot to Thiruvananthapuram and back to Rajkot, was rejected by the Bank on the ground that the petitioner’s domicile is Kozhikode and the LTC facility sought for in relation to his wife was for the travel from Rajkot to Thiruvananthapuram and back to Rajkot. This has been challenged in the writ petition. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the third respondent. 3. That the petitioner’s domicile is Kozhikode is W.P.(C).1538/2008 3 not seriously disputed. LTC was availed by the petitioner and his wife, by accompanying him. They had undertaken a trip to Darjeeling. Petitioner’s claim was rejected in relation to the expenses incurred on behalf of his wife because it was not a travel which was undertaken from the place of posting of the employee to the place of domicile. In these circumstances, the stand taken by the Bank does not warrant any interference. 4. Further I note that the petitioner’s wife is also a fairly high placed employee, who was stationed at Rajkot, in spite of the petitioner’s transfer and posting at Thiruvananthapuram for reasons of her own employment. I do not find any ground to interfere with the stand taken by the Bank. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs