IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P.(T) No. 6045 of 2008. Reserved on: 06.10.2010. Decided on: 19.10.2010. _____________________________________________________ Suresh Chand. …Petitioner. -Versus- H.P.S.E.B. and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Kr. Virender Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Anjula Khajuria, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Material facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Power House Driver on work charge basis in the erstwhile Department of M.P.P. & Power on 27.04.1961. His services were regularized as Power House Driver w.e.f.15.08.1972. He was brought on regular cadre as Assistant Fitter w.e.f. 15.08.1972 vide office order dated 30.08.1997. He retired on 06.09.1997. He submitted T.A. Bill on 06.12.1998. The same was rejected on 12.03.1999. 2. Kr. Virender Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the action of the respondents of rejecting the claim of the petitioner on 12.03.1999 is illegal, arbitrary, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. Yes. 3. Ms. Anjula Khajuria, learned counsel for the respondents has strenuously argued that since the petitioner has submitted the claim after 15 months, the decision of the Board is justifiable. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. Petitioner has superannuated on 06.09.1997. He submitted the claim on 06.12.1998. S.R. 147 provides that the competent authority may, for special reasons which should be recorded, permit any Government servant to draw travelling allowance for a journey of the kind mentioned in Rule 146. S.R. 146 and S.R. 147 reads thus: “S.R. 146. Unless in any case it be otherwise expressly provided in this section, no person is entitled to any travelling allowance for a journey made after retirement or dismissal from Government service or after the termination of such service. S.R. 147. A competent authority may, for special reasons which should be recorded, permit any Government servant to draw travelling allowance for a journey of the kind mentioned in Rule 146” 6. The Government of India’s Orders reproduced below S.R. 147 of Swamy’s Supplementary Rules provides for T.A. to Central Government servants on retirement. Paragraph 2(iii) of the Government of India’s Orders reads thus: “2 (iii) The concession may be availed of by a Government servant who is eligible for it, at any time during his leave preparatory to retirement, or within one year of the date of his retirement. Powers to extend the time-limit of one year will be exercised by the Administrative Ministries/Departments with the approval of the F.A. concerned, in individual cases attendant with special circumstances.” 7. A bare perusal of Paragraph 2(iii) makes it abundantly clear that the power to extend the time-limit of one year can be exercised by the Administrative Ministries/Departments with the approval of the F.A. concerned, in individual cases attendant with special circumstances. However, the case of the petitioner has been rejected on 12.03.1999 without invoking the relaxation clause. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondent-Board is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for entitlement of T.A. on his retirement by invoking the relaxation Clause, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge October 19, 2010. (bhupender)