IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1034 of 2009 Govind Singh (Ex-LH (Nt) ……….Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others …….Respondents Present : Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) 1. Heard Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. 2. Regarding the maintainability of this writ petition before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Section 2 (a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and has placed reliance upon the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in R. Viswan and others v. Union of India and others reported in 1983 (2) LLJ 157, where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the members of the General Reserve Engineering Force are members of Armed Forces. 3. The petitioner is a member of General Reserve Engineering Force also known as Border Road Organization. While his unit was posted at Assam, vide an order of his superior authorities the petitioner was “attached” to Delhi from 3.11.2000 to 11.12.2005. During this period, the petitioner was given allowances as applicable to a member of the said service, who is posted in Delhi. These allowances include House Rent 2 Allowances, City Compensatory Allowances, Transportation Allowances including others. However, vide the impugned order dated 30.6.2008 the said payment given to the petitioner for the aforesaid allowances was withdrawn from the petitioner and in fact a recovery was also made from the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was only “attached” to Delhi and it was not a “normal posting” and such allowances were not applicable to an employee who was on “attachment” in Delhi. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the amount already given to the petitioner has wrongly been withdrawn and in fact the petitioner is liable to be given the remaining amount which he was liable to be given for the said allowances, for the reasons that such allowances are paid to a person who has actually worked or done his actual duties at a particular place irrespective of the fact that the Company or the Unit to which he actually belonged was posted somewhere else. 5. Admittedly these are special allowances given to an employee so that the employee meets the additional expenses incurred in living in that particular place. Since the petitioner has performed his duties at Delhi, he was liable to get allowances, as given to him earlier. This contention of the petitioner appears to be fair and just. This Court is in total agreement of this proposition. 6. Writ petition is therefore liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. It is held that the petitioner was liable to get the allowances as given to him earlier. The respondents are directed to calculate and release the 3 amount in favour of the petitioner in terms of the observations made above. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.10.2011 Avneet