CWP(T) No. 5606 of 2008 01.09.2010 Present: Mr. Tek Chand Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State. Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “I. That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant overstayal allowance to the applicant from Aug, 1983 to November, 1997, admissible under the rules. II. That the impugned letter dated 29th April, 98 (Annexure A-1) issued by CMO Keylong (R-3) may kindly be declared null & void being arbitrary and illegal. III. That the entire original record of the case be summoned to Hon’ble Tribunal for perusal and verification. IV. That the respondents may also be burdened with interest @ 18% on arrear of overstayal allowance, besides cost of this application. V. Any other order/direction deemed just and proper in the interest of justice may kindly be passed keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Annexure A-1 is the letter dated 29.4.1998 which reads as under:- “HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISTRICT LAHOUL AND SPITI AT KEYLONG To The Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171009. No. HFW-KLG-B(14)-9/ Dated, Keylong the Sub: Grant of overstayal allowance to Smt. Susheela Devi, Designated Staff Nurse. Sir, Kindly refer to your memo. No. HFW-H(III)B(15) 210/91 dated 10-12-97 vide which you have accorded sanction of overstayal allowance in favour of Smt. Shusheela Devi Designated staff Nurse (DH Keylong) at present working at PHC Rewalsar District Mandi. 2. In this connection, your attention is invited to the H.P. Govt. (Tribal Development) letter No. PLG(F)5-8/80-TD dated 8th September, 81 (Para-2). It is clearly stated in this para that “an employee belonging to tribal areas shall also -2- be entitled to the over-stayal allowance in the event of his posting in the I.T.D.P. area other than his own I.T.D.P. area”. (Photo copy enclosed for ready reference please). 3. In view of the above, Shmt. Susheela Devi is not entitled for this benefit as she remained posted in her own I.T.D.P. area i.e. Lahoul Block of this District. 4. Again, as per clarification given by the Commissioner- cum-Secretary(Welfare) to the Govt. of H.P. vide letter No. Kalyan-CH(10)-32/78 dated 4/5th November, 1986 (Photocopy enclosed), under Legal Opinion(ii), “The Scheduled Tribe lady will not lose her status even after her marriage with a non Scheduled Caste/Sch. Tribe person. She will be treated as Sch. Tribe in relation to her/her father’s ordinary place of resident not in her husband’s place of residence and will be entitled to enjoy benefits from her/her father’s ordinary place of residence. Who will however, be entitled to enjoy the benefits as being extended by the Govt. of India even on her migration to another State.” 5. You are, therefore, requested to review the case in the light of above clarifications and the decision arrived at may please be communicated at your earliest convenience. Yours faithfully, DA/4. Chief Medical Officer, Keylong. No. HFW-KLG-B(14)-9/ -illegible- Dated Keylong 29.4.98. Copy of the above is forwarded to Shmt. Susheela Devi, Designated Staff Nurse, Primary Health Centre, Rewalsar, for information please. Further action in the matter will be taken up after the receipt of review decision by the Directorate. Sd/- Chief Medical Officer, Keylong. 29.4.98.” 3. Even though the respondents have justified the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for monetary benefits but however it is the matter of fact that the Government has not taken any decision reviewing and recalling the sanction accorded in terms of letter dated 10.12.1997. In terms of Annexure A-1 the Chief Medical Officer, Keylong has requested respondent No. 2 to review such sanction accorded in favour of the petitioner. -3- 4. Under these circumstances a direction is issued to the respondents to take a final decision with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement of monetary benefits and other claims. The decision be taken positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Needless to add the authorities shall assign reasons which shall be communicated to the petitioner. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. September 1, 2010 (PK)