IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 5937 of 2008 Date of Decision: 20th May, 2010 Y.D.Sharma and another Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Dy. Advocate General. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioners were deputed to join the study tour in Australia for a period of three months. This was in connection with the implementation of World Bank Assisted Project for Strengthening Technician Education Phase-II. They were to remain on tour for a period of 89 days w.e.f. 14.3.1998 to 10.6.1998. There is no dispute that study door was undertaken by the petitioners. The petitioners submitted their T.A. bills. In terms of annexure A-6, the respondents passed the following order on the same:- “To The Principal Govt. Polytechnic Hamirpur (H.P.) Sub: Foreign Fellowship Training T.A. Bill. Memo: Kindly refer to your letter No. GPH/PF/YDS/SCV/98- 830 dated 24.3.99 on the above cited subject. In this Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 connection, it is intimated that the T.A. claim in respect of Sh.Y.D.Sharma, HOD Elect. And Sh.S.C.Verma Sr.Lect. may be drawn at your own level from Hamirpur to Air Port Delhi and back to Hamirpur only. The remaining claim has already been paid through package to them through Ed. CIL, Delhi. The T.A. Bills in original are hereby enclosed for your information and further necessary action. Encls: As above Director Technical Education Vocational & Industrial Trg., HP. Sundernagar.” 2. The petitioners are thus aggrieved of the same. 3. In effect, the petitioners are demanding a sum of US $ 100 per day for the period for which they remained on tour. Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how petitioners are entitled to the same. No doubt their absence was authorized by the State and they were required to undergo training for a period of 89 days, but the expense for their training has been borne by the State. Petitioners were also released a daily allowance @ US $ 29.25 to meet their out of pocket expenses and boarding charges. 4. In letter dated 13.10.1997 (Annexure R-1) it was clarified that a sum of US $ 10 per day was paid as an out of pocket allowance after meeting all expenses of training cost inclusive of barding, lodging, local travel etc. A total sum of Rs.8,76,000/- was incurred by the State for giving training to only two officers. 5. I see no basis on which the petitioners can claim the amount prayed for in this petition. No legally enforceable right of the petitioners stands violated. There is no merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 20th May, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.