1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No.163 of 2003 Date of decision: 19.12.2008 State of HP & others ..Petitioners Versus Ramesh Chand ..Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. AG with Mr.P.M. Negi, Dy. AG. For the Respondent: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the order dated 25.2.2002 of learned State Administrative Tribunal, whereby allowing the Original Application filed by respondent, Ramesh Chand, writ petitioners have been directed to pay transfer TA claim of the respondent alongwith costs of Rs. 1,000/- 2. Facts relevant for disposal of the writ petition lie in narrow compass. Respondent was posted as a Clerk in the Treasury at Pangi in the year 1989. In November, 1989, he was promoted as Assistant and 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 transferred to Dadahu in Sirmaur District vide order Annexure P-1. He joined at Dadahu in mid March, 1990. In June, 1990, he submitted his transfer TA bill for an amount of Rs. 17072/- minus Rs. 4,000/- which he had withdrawn on account of advance, while proceeding from Pangi. His bill remained pending with the Controlling officer till November, 1991. It may be stated that he had spent a sum of Rs. 19880/- on carriage of his household goods (luggage) from Pangi to Doda in J & K in gunny bags and that the total weight of his luggage was 28 quintals and 40 Kg. Controlling Officer with a view to making inquiry into the claim, asked the respondent to give details his luggage as also the number of truck by which he carried the luggage from Doda Kistwar in J & K to Dadahu. Respondent did not give the truck number. Also, he did not give the detail of his luggage and stated that it was none of the business of the Controlling officer to enquire about the details of his luggage. When his bill was not cleared for payment, respondent filed an Original Application which was ordered to be treated as representation, made to Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Finance). His representation was rejected by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Finance) because he felt that the respondent was unable to explain as to how or by which truck he did carry the luggage from Doda Kishtwar to Dadahu and this indicated that in fact there was no luggage to be carried from Doda Kishtwar to Dadahu and if it was so, the question of his carrying 28 quintals and 40 Kg of luggage from Pangi to Doda Kishtwar could not arise. 3. Respondent filed another Original Application. Tribunal has allowed the same, holding that though the respondents had the power to 3 reject the claim or to reduce the amount of claim but that could have been done only after making an inquiry in terms of Supplementary Rules 195 (g) part-II and no such inquiry having been made, respondent was entitled to claim the entire amount of bill. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, the amicus curiae, appointed by us because the respondent did not put in appearance despite notice of actual date of hearing. Also we have gone through the record. We endorse the view taken by the Tribunal that without making an inquiry in accordance with the provision of Supplementary Rule 195(g) of rule supra, respondents could not have rejected the claim of the respondent, but we are of the view that a direction could not have been given to the respondents to pay the entire amount of the bill without making an inquiry into the claim. The Tribunal should have directed the respondents to make inquiry in terms of Supplementary Rule 195(g) and to pass appropriate order regarding payment of claim made in the TA bill. 5. Accordingly, we partly allow the present writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal, to the extent it directs the petitioners to straightaway pay the entire amount of the bill submitted by the respondent. Instead, we direct the petitioners to make an inquiry in accordance with the provision of Supplementary Rule 195(g) and to pay the amount to which the respondent may be found entitled on such inquiry, with simple interest @ 6 % from June, 1990 when the bill was submitted, to 4 the date of payment. We direct the petitioners to make an inquiry and to settle the claim within six months. In view of the above stated position, writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( R. B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 19th December, 2008 (sl)