The judgment emphasizes the impermissibility of recovery by the employer in certain situations, as established in Rafiq Masih's case.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioners have preferred these petitions for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure P-2), whereby office of respondent No.2 has directed recovery of Transport Allowance paid to the petitioners during their deployment with respondent No.5-NTPC Unit Dadri.

2. It is undisputed fact that petitioners herein are Class-C employees, who are working as Constables in Central Industrial Security Force (in short 'CISF') and were deputed in Security of NTPC Dadri during the years 2008 to 2013 and there was an arrangement between CISF and NTPC, whereby security personnels were to be provided by the CISF to NTPC and initially their pay was to be disbursed by the CISF but was to be reimbursed to CISF by respondent No.5-NTPC later on.

3. It is also an admitted fact that vide Office Memorandum dated 29.08.2008, category of the petitioners was allowed monthly Transport Allowance, but subject to the condition that Allowance was not admissible to those employees, who were provided with facility of Government transport and further that Office Memorandum dated 03.10.1997, whereby Transport Allowance was disallowed to the employees having been provided with official accommodation within one kilometer of office or within a campus housing the place of work and residence, was withdrawn. Meaning thereby that Transport Allowance was admissible irrespective of distance of official accommodation but inadmissible to those employees who were provided Government Transport.

4. During their posting with respondent No.5-NTPC, Transport Allowance was paid to the petitioners and others by their employer CISF and claim for its reimbursement was submitted to NTPC. However, NTPC did not reimburse the said Transport Allowance to CISF, on the ground that NTPC had provided transport facility to the security personnels deputed with it whereupon matter was again taken up by CISF authorities vide communication dated 03.06.2010 (Annexure-02) with NTPC, wherein, on the basis of recommendation of 6th Pay Commission, it was canvassed that Central Government has sanctioned payment of Transport Allowance to its employees even if the distance from the residence to the office is 0' kilometer and further that no proper/dedicated vehicles are being provided by NTPC for transporting the CISF Duty Personnels. The fact remains that despite correspondences between NTPC and CISF, the amount was not reimbursed by NTPC, whereupon Office of Commandant of CISF had directed to recover the Transport Allowance from petitioners which was paid to them.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, (2015) 4 SCC 334, has canvassed that present case is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in this case and, therefore, even without adjudicating right of the petitioners, with respect to the entitlement of the Transport Allowance during the relevant period involved in the present petitions, and liability of respondents to pay the same, impugned recovery order/notice dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure P-2) is liable to be quashed.

6. Prayer of the petitioners to quash recovery order, has been refuted by the respondents by filing separate replies. However in view of restricted arguments for quashing impugned recovery notice on the basis of ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case, there is no necessity to discuss merits of other pleas raised and refuted by parties with respect to entitlement, liability to pay, payment and recovery of Transport Allowance.

7. Referring the judgment passed by the Apex Court in High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others vs. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 has contended that petitioners are not entitled for benefit of ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Rafiq Masih's case.

8. Admittedly it is no