1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5833/1994 Rajasthan Council of Diploma Engineers & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 16/10/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri D.C. Tiwari for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Avasthi, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners have challenged the order of the respondent-department dated 18.3.1994 whereby it was directed that since the employees of the Bisalpur Project are required to travel extensively within the sphere of their duties, as such they would not be entitled to travelling allowance or halting allowance. Shri D.C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Rajasthan Travelling Allowance Rules, 1971, especially Rule 7(5) of the Rules and Schedule 4 appended to the aforesaid Rules. Schedule 4 inter alia provides that if a government servant is required to visit a place at a distance of 8 kms. from headquarters on a particular date, he shall be entitled to 2 receive travelling allowance provided if he is required to discharge his duties on such day and at such place at least for a period of 8 hours. The Schedule also provides that halting allowance will be admissible only in case the government servant is required to remain absent from the headquarters. The respondents have resisted the claim of the petitioners by asserting that the members of the petitioner Association are required to perform their duties within approximately 8 kms for the residential quarters at Raj Mahal, which have been provided to them free of charge. Although, the respondents in their reply admitted that sometimes they are even required to work at the Bisalpur Dam Project on holidays and Sundays. However, the workshop, central stores, diesel pump and laboratories are within 8 kms. from the headquarters at Raj Mahal. Further the quarries, crushers and batching plant are situated at more than 8 kms. from the headquarters. In regard to the letters of recommendation sent by Executive Engineer dated 5.10.1990 and 3.10.1990, it is stated that they are merely letters of 3 recommendations and do not entitle the petitioners to any claim. Their further contention is that the members of the petitioner association are mostly Junior Engineers and Assistant Engineers and they are provided free transport service from their residential quarters to Bisalpur Dam. In the light of the stand taken by the respondents, although it becomes a contentious issue whether the distance between the headquarters and the site of Bisalpur Dam Project at which the members of the petitioner Association are required to visit, is more than 8 kms or less than that, but the various documents which the petitioners have produced apparently suggest that such distance appears to be more than 8 kms and particularly this has not been disputed even by the respondents, since they have stated that the quarries, crushers and batching plant etc are situated more than 8 kms from the headquarters. Claim and the bills of the members of the petitioner association shall have to be therefore scrutinised and decided by the respondents on case to case basis and on proof of the 4 fact that the distance for which they were assigned the duties from the headquarters was more than 8 kms and that they were required to stay at such place of duty for more than 8 hours. The respondents would have to take a view and decide to pay travelling and halting allowance claim on the facts of each case. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the members of the petitioner Association to submit, if and when they visit the Dam site or other site referred to above, their bills claiming travelling and halting allowance and satisfy the respondents of the requirements of the rules aforesaid. In the event of submissions of bills, the respondents are expected to take a decision on case to case basis in accordance with rules. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/