IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15885 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, NEW DELHI 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, GOVERNMENT HEALTH SCHEME, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI 3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH SCHEME, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, SOUTH CHAJJUBAGH, PATNA ......PETITIONERS Versus 1. ASSOCIATION OF RETD.I.A.S.OFFICERS THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DR. H. K. SINHA, IAS [RETD.], IS HAVING ITS OFFICE AT JAYANTI KUNJ, SALIMPUR AHRA, P.S. GANDHI MAIDAN, PATNA 2. SHRI HARI SHANKAR SINHA, IAS [RETD], RAM SUCHIT MISHRA PATH, BORING CANAL ROAD, PATNA .......RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioners: Sri M. K. Rai, Sr. Central Govt. counsel Mr. Sudhir Kr. Tiwary, C.G.C For the respondents: None -------------- 2 23-09-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order of the learned Tribunal. An attempt was made on behalf of the petitioners to dispute the fact noted by learned Tribunal in paragraph 2 of its order that applicant no.2 was referred by the C.G.H.S. Patna to Ramchandran Research Centre, Chennai for treatment and for necessary investigation. But such dispute is found to have no merit in view of facts mentioned at the end of paragraph 5 of the synopsis submitted on behalf of the petitioners wherein a criticism has been levelled that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the applicant had 2 sought and received permission for Ramchandran Research Centre, Chennai and not for the Apollo Hospital, Chennai. Since the bill in question which has been allowed by the Tribunal relates to traveling allowance amounting to Rs. 22,398/- and since the traveling, for the purpose of treatment at Chennai was permitted by C.G.H.S. Patna, the fact that applicant no.2 before the Tribunal had to get himself treated at Apollo Hospital, Chennai because of non availability of the required treatment at Ramchandran Research Centre, Chennai will make no difference so far claim for traveling allowance is concerned. In our view, the judgement and order of the Tribunal needs no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. This writ petition is dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)