IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1038 of 2006 Between: Seshapal, S/o. Puttual, R/o. Secunderabad, C/o. 99, APO. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Officer Commanding IMIRAT WORKSHOP EME C/o. 99, APO, 2 C. G.D.A. Ministry Of Defence, Govt. Of India, West Blocks, R.K. Puram New Delhi. 3 Secretary, Ministry Of Defence, Govt Of India, South Block, New Delhi-110011. 4 The Commandant, HQ Incharge, EME, Ministry Of Defence, Trimulghirry, Secunderabad-500015. 5 The Controller Of Defence Accounts, Ministry Of Defence, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly on in the nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to pay 75% of the D.A. for the petitioner temporary duty at Bhutan from 15-7-2002 to 15-5-2005 and be pleased to pass such other necessary order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SURESH BODGE Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was employed as Havaldar in the Indian Army. He was sent to Bhutan, to impart training to Armed Personnel, in that country from 2002 to 2005. The petitioner states that though he was entitled to be paid Dearness Allowance (for short ‘DA’) at 75%, he was sanctioned only at 25%. His grievance is that though he made number of representations, the respondents did not pass any orders thereon. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the DA was provided at 25%, on account of the fact that the petitioner was provided with free ration, on certain occasions, and the relevant bills were also enclosed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents. The respondents do not dispute that the petitioner rendered his services in Bhutan, on the instructions issued by them. The competent authority framed regulations, from time to time, providing for payment of DA, at different rates. The rate of DA would depend upon the nature of facilities extended to the members of the Force. On his part, the petitioner claimed that he was not treated as State Guest, nor provided with any accommodation. The respondents choose to release only 25% of the DA, on the assumption that certain facilities were extended to the petitioner. Till the Writ Petition came to be filed, no reply was given to the petitioner. When the petitioner made a specific claim for DA, at a particular rate, the respondents either ought to have passed a reasoned order, or ought to have called for further information from the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to pass a reasoned order, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, on the claim of the petitioner, for payment of DA at 75%. In case, they need any further information, it shall be open to the respondents to require the petitioner to furnish the same. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.12.03.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ