Kerala High Court
P.K.Gopalkrishnan Nair vs The Commandant on 29 January, 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 30503 of 2012 (K)
------------------------------------------
PETITIONER(S) :
--------------------------
1. P.K.GOPALKRISHNAN NAIR
RETIRED HEAD CONSTABLE NO.713260179, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL
SECURITY FORCE, CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN,
RESIDING AT PUSHPA VIHAR, HOUSE NO. V 360B,
NAKKAMTHURUTH, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM-682 143.
2. K.P.MATHAI,
RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR NO.713340031, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL
SECURITY FORCE, CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN,
RESIDING AT KAVANAD HOUSE, PUTTUMANOOR,
PUTHENCRUZ P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 308.
3. T.V.RAVI,
RETIRED SUB INSPECTOR NO.714501435, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL
SECURITY FORCE, CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN,
RESIDING AT THUMPAPALLIL HOUSE, EDAKULAM P.O.,
ARIPALAM VIA, THRISSUR-680 688.
4. K.SASIDHARAN,
RETIRED HEAD CONSTABLE NO.744070093, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL
SECURITY FORCE, CISF UNIT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN,
RESIDING AT ANNATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE,
PATTUPARAMBIL ROAD, THEKKUMBHAGOM,
TRIPUNITHURA-682 031.
BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU
RESPONDENT(S) :
----------------------------
1. THE COMMANDANT,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT,
COCHIN PORT TRUST, COCHIN-682 003.
2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL`
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, D BLOCK,
RAJAJI BHAVAN, BASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090.
..2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 30503 of 2012 (K)
------------------------------------------
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, SOUTHERN SECTOR,
RAJAJI BHAVAN, BASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 090.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE HEADQUARTERS,
BLOCK NO.13, C.G.O.COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 003
* ADDITIONAL R5 IMPLEADED
5. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
* ADDITIONAL R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.01.2015 IN
I.A.NO. 1314 OF 2015.
BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-10-2016, THE COURT ON 26-10-2016 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 30503 of 2012 (K)
------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM NO.21(2)/2008-E-II(B)
DATED 29-08-2008 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E-27028/08-ESTT.II/
VOL.III/4337 DATED 24-11-2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.E-28017/1/089
ESTT.II/VOL.II/2088 DATED 2-11-2010 ISSUED BY
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25-04-2011 TO
THE RESPONDENTS 2, 3 & 4.
EXHIBIT P4(A): TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION SLIPS.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 03-10-2011 TO
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03-11-2011 TO
THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-03-2012 IN
W.P(C).NO. 34882/2011 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V-15014/L&R/SS/CC/PKGN/
2012/314 DATED 24-08-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXHIBIT R1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 29.05.2009.
EXHIBIT R1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.05.2011.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TOJUDGE.
Msd.
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.30503 of 2012
= = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26th day of October, 2016
JUDGMENT
1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
i. A writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order to call for the records leading to the issue of Exhibit P8 and set aside Exhibit P8.
ii. A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider granting arrears of Transport Allowance due to the petitioners from 29.8.2008 onwards."
2. The petitioners who are retired Central Industrial Security Force (CISF or short) personnel from CISF Unit, Cochin Port Trust (CPT for short), seek grant of Transport Allowance for the period from 29.08.2008 till the date of their retirement. It is contended that Transport Allowance was granted in lieu of City Compensatory Allowance as per Exhibit P1 and different rates were prescribed by Exhibit P2. By Exhibit P3 dated 02.12.2010 it was directed that Transport Allowance may be allowed to all personnel who have not been provided with the facility of Government transport for commuting to their place of duty from the residence and vice versa. Though the petitioners had made representations seeking the W.P.(C).No.30503/12 2 benefit of such allowance to them as well, the said claim was rejected by the 3rd respondent by Exhibit P8.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. The contention of the petitioners was that the Transport Allowance which was sanctioned by Exhibit P1 was made applicable to employees of the CISF deputed to the CPT, pursuant to a representation preferred by them, the said benefit has been denied to the petitioners who had retired in 2011. Exhibit P8 proceeds on the reasoning that Transport Allowance, as provided in Exhibit P1, shall not be admissible to those employees who had been provided with the facility of Government transport. It is stated in Exhibit P8 that the petitioners were deployed for duty on shift basis and Government transport was provided to them to reach their respective place of duty. It is further stated that CISF vehicle was available in the Units and provided to personnel performing normal shift duty. It is admitted at para 6 of Exhibit P8 that CISF personnel including shift duty personnel have been granted Transport Allowance from July 2011 onwards. The reason stated is W.P.(C).No.30503/12 3 that the Government transport provided to them was withdrawn from July 2011. Since the petitioner had been provided with Government transport facility, they were not entitled to Transport Allowance, it is contended.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that Transport Allowance is granted in lieu of City Compensatory Allowance in Exhibit P1 and it is the entitlement of the employees. It is further stated that though Exhibit P1 decision was not implemented in the petitioners' unit, it was pursuant to the representation preferred by them that such benefit was granted to existing employees w.e.f July 2011. It is further contended that duty vehicle is available for employees to be transported to their place of duty after July 2011 onwards also and there is absolutely no justification for denying the benefit to the petitioners alone on the ground that duty vehicle had been provided for them.
5. The learned Assistant Solicitor General, on the other hand, would submit that Transport Allowance granted by Exhibit P1 was subject to the specific condition that it would not be admissible to those W.P.(C).No.30503/12 4 employees who had been provided with a facility of Government transport. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated as follows:
"Prior to the increase in the strength of CISF personnel in CISF Unit, Cochin Port Trust, one bus and one Truck was being provided to shift the duty personnel. The service of the Truck was used by the CISF personnel in the place of the bus, when the bus developed any technical snags. In the year 2011, CPT Management provided a new Bus to the CISF replacing the old bus. Consequent upon the increase in the strength of CISF personnel in Cochin Port Trust due to induction in Vallarpadam Container Terminal and LNG, the Cochin Port began providing hired vehicle to the CISF personnel. However, these vehicles provided by the management were not exclusively for shifting of duty personnel as it was being utilised for other operational and administrative purpose also."
6. Further at paragraph 19, it is stated as follows:-
"It is further submitted that all the personnel of CISF Unit Cochin Port Trust were granted Transport Allowance from July 2011 onwards and the Government transport provided to them was withdrawn from July 2011."
7. I have considered the contentions raised on either side. It is clear that Exhibit P1 provides for Transport Allowance in lieu of City W.P.(C).No.30503/12 5 Compensatory Allowance only for those employees who are not provided with Government transport from their residence to their place of duty and vice versa. Exhibit P8 impugned order as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents specifically contends that the writ petitioners were persons employed in the CISF, Cochin Port Trust Unit and had been provided with transport facilities by the Department. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the said assertion, it is not possible for this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enter into and decide upon the factual basis of such assertion. The contention in Exhibit P8 is that the full departmental transport facility available to duty personnel was withdrawn from July 2011 and this is cited as the reason for grant of Transport Allowance to CISF personnel from July 2011 onwards.
8. It appears from a reading of Exhibit P8 that the contentions raised by the petitioners have been examined, considered and answered in the said order. Factual disputes as to the adequacy and availability of Government transportation up to and after July 2011 are not matters which this Court can delve into in exercise of its W.P.(C).No.30503/12 6 extraordinary jurisdiction. In the above view of the matter, Exhibit P8, being an administrative order, appears to be informed by reasons. I see no procedural irregularity or illegality vitiating Exhibit P8 which justifies interference by this Court. The writ petition, therefore, fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge sj