IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to non-practicing allowance based on the service rules and circulars, despite the opposition from the respondents.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

“10.1. This Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or of like nature to quash the impugned order dated 19.02.2014 (Annexure P-1) granting the petitioner the amount of Rs. 66,119/-as non-practicing allowance to the petitioner alongwith 18% interest thereon within the stipulated period.

10.2. Any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, may also be awarded to the petitioner including the cost of the petition.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in the Medical Department for long term as Orthopedic Specialist as well as Civil Surgeon. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was posted as Orthopedic Specialist by the office order dated 03.07.2003 for the period of one year i.e. since 04.07.2003 upto 30.06.2004 in CIMS (Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science), Bilaspur (C.G.). As per the Rules propounded by the State, the non-practicing allowance as well as deputation allowance was to be paid to the petitioner as the post was non-practicing post. As such the non-practicing allowance comes to Rs. 66,119/-, which has not been paid to the petitioner. In this regard the petitioner had made a representation to the Dean on 17.01.2005. Then again on 15.07.2005, a detailed representation was made severally for non-practicing allowance and deputation allowance, but no action was taken thereon. Then the further representation was made to the Dean on 25.04.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as W.P.(S) No.4229/2008, in which the Court on 07.12.2009 decided the case with a direction that the respondent authority shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and circular within a period of 4 weeks. Thereafter, in pursuance of the Court order, the detailed representation was submitted to the respondent no.2, but despite of the direction of this Court, the respondent authority did not consider the representation of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition, in which the respondents filed the reply and submitted the impugned order. Thus, the liberty has been granted by the Hon'ble Court in favour of the petitioner that the petitioner is free to proceed in accordance with law. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wrong adjudication by the respondents has become the cause of action for filing the instant writ petition. The respondents have infringed the legal rights of the petitioner ignoring his entitlement, which has to be dealt with very sternly. Under the service Rules and circular of the State, the deputation allowance and non-practicing allowance has always to be given to the employees serving on deputation to other institution. Apart from this a petty amount of Rs. 6,683/- has been paid as a pittance making the joke of his service. The calculation has been mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner is only entitled to get Rs.6,683/- as deputation allowance, but they have not considered the non- practicing allowance of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside. The respondents have only considered the deputation allowance of the petitioner, whereas the petitioner has claimed deputation allowance as well as non- practicing allowance, but the same has not been considered by the respondents. The petitioner is entitled to get the amount of Rs. 66,119/- alongwith interest as non-practicing allowance which has not been paid to him till date. Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the petitioner on his fanciful assumption and claim has submitted and pleaded in the writ petition that the amount that is paid to h