IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4864 of 2002 PRATIMA DEVI, W/O LATE DAYANAND MISHRA, R/O VILLAGE-ADARAHA, P.O.-SANSKRIT NIRMALI VIA BALUA BAZAR, P.S.-PRATAPGANJ, DISTRICT- SUPAUL. ……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. DIRECTOR, SANSKRIT EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 4. CHAIRMAN, BIHAR SANSKRIT SIKSHA BOARD, BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA. 5. HEAD MASTER, SANSKRIT UCHA VIDYALAYA, SANSKRIT NIRMALI, P.O.-SANSKRIT NIRMALI VIA BALUA BAZAR, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 18.02.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Board. Petitioner, who is a widow of Member of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”), has filed this writ application for a direction to the respondents to pay the travelling allowance of her husband and arrears of dearness allowance. It is submitted that during his lifetime, husband of the petitioner travelled to different places for inspection of different institutions in course of his duty between the periods of 25.10.1981 to 25.01.1995. He incurred expenses in course of 2 the inspection. As he was on official duty and in terms of the decision of the Board, he had travelled to different places and had inspected the institutions, he was entitled to travelling allowance which has not been paid. Similarly, it is submitted that the dearness allowance of the husband of petitioner of the period 1980 to 2000 amounting to Rs.24,204/- has not been paid to him. Some bills in respect of the travelling allowance have been annexed as Annexure-1 series to show that the husband of the petitioner had submitted the bills to the Board. A calculation chart has also been submitted to show the arrears of dearness allowance of the husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner fell ill while in service and he was taken to IGIMS, Patna and AIIMS, Delhi for treatment in which huge expenses were incurred by the petitioner. However, he could not survive and died while in service. The medical reimbursement in respect of the same has also not been paid by the Board. 3 Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Board, in which, it is stated that the Board does not have any paper to verify the claims of the husband of the petitioner and, therefore, the Board is unable to examine the same. Learned counsel for the Board submits that the petitioner may file a representation enclosing necessary documents for consideration of the claim in respect of her deceased husband in respect of all the three counts. In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to file a representation before the Board giving details of the claims in respect of her deceased husband in respect of all the three claims, as may be available with her. The representation shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Chairman of the Board within two months from the date of filing of the representation. All arrears which may be found admissible in respect of the deceased husband of the petitioner must be paid to her within that very period. Before parting with this case, this 4 Court points out that, in case, the husband of the petitioner had, in fact, inspected different institutions during the period of 1981 to 1995 the records of the Board itself will bear evidence of that fact. For this purpose, the petitioner is not required to substantiate her claim. If the records of the Board show that the husband of the petitioner had, in fact, travelled to different places and had held inspection, it is duty of the Board to calculate the travelling allowance in respect of the deceased husband of the petitioner at the rate admissible in the Board and pay the same. For this purpose, the petitioner will not be held liable for not submitting the details of actually amount spent during the inspection tour. Since the rates of travelling allowance are fixed by law for all categories of government servants, which must be applicable to the Board also if it does not have its own rates fixed. Accordingly the Board is liable to pay the same to the petitioner at the admissible rates. The only verification which the Board is required to make in this respect, is as to 5 whether, as a fact, the husband of the petitioner had travelled to different places for inspection, or not, under valid orders/authorization. Similarly, in respect of the claim of the dearness allowance also, the same will be verified from the records of the Board itself. Therefore, the widow of deceased Member should not be required to file any calculation in this respect. Arrears under this head should also be calculated on the basis of the records available in the Board and the same should also be paid to her without compelling her to produce any detailed calculation. So far as medical allowance is concerned, if the petitioner produces reliable documents with her representation, the same should also be considered and appropriate orders should be passed on the same. The fact that the husband of the petitioner died while in service and was suffering from ailment from before is a fact which will be well known in the Board itself and evident from the records of the Board. Therefore, this claim can also be cross-checked from the records of the Board 6 itself. It is emphasized that since the husband of the petitioner was a Member of the Board and died while in service, the petitioner should not be harassed by the Chairman in getting her pending claims cleared and the same must be paid to her within time stipulated by this Court for which the Chairman himself will be personally responsible. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)