JUDGMENT

M. M. DAS, J. — This second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in O.S. No.151/95-I filed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for decree declaring that the order passed by the defendant No.1 being the Life Insurance Corporation of India, represented by its Senior Divisional Manager, rejecting the Leave Travel Concession bill submitted by the plaintiff, as illegal and invalid in law and for decree for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from deducting the advance amount drawn by the plaintiff for the journey undertaken by his family members, which was sought to be deducted from his salary and for other ancillary reliefs.

2. The plaintiff's case in brief was that he was a Class-I Officer of the Life Insurance Corporation of India (in short ‘the L.I.C.) and was entitled to Leave Travel Concession (in short ‘L.T.C.’) along with his family members as per the rules. He availed one such L.T.C. for the year, 1992 for his family members for which he submitted a tour programme before the defendant No.1 which was accordingly approved. The family members of the plain¬tiff travelled by a taxi hired from Sony Travels at Bhubaneswar, which is an approved/recognized travel agency of the L.I.C. of India. The plaintiff drew an advance of Rs.25,000/- for the said journey and after completion of the tour, submitted his L.T.C. bill on 12.11.1993 along with the bill of the Travels Agency, before the competent authority, for passing the same. On 3.2.1994, the defendant No.2 who is the Manager, Office Servic¬ing, L.I.C. of India, wrote a letter to the plaintiff that the L.T.C. bill submitted by him has been disallowed as it had cer¬tain irregularities. On 10.2.1994, the plaintiff wrote back to the L.I.C. that rejection of his L.T.C. bill is illegal, as no reason has been assigned for rejecting the same and the said bill was submitted in accordance with the rules. On 23.4.1994, the defendant No.2 intimated that his L.T.C. bill is being reviewed and the decision would be taken by the competent authority which would be intimated to him. About a year thereafter on 23.3.1995, the defendant No.1 intimated the plaintiff that his L.T.C. claim has been rejected by the Zonal Office directing the plaintiff to refund the advance taken by him and if he does not refund the same, the said amount would be recovered from his salary. It is the case of the plaintiff that he being an Executive Member of Class-I Officers' Union of L.I.C., his bill was rejected out of grudge and there was absolutely no reason for rejecting the same. On these pleadings, the plaintiff sought for the reliefs as stated earlier.

3. The defendants contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint and claimed for dismissal of the suit. They pleaded that the suit was not maintainable in law and there is no cause of action to file the suit. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the L.T.C. bill of the plaintiff has been rightly rejected and instead of making a representation to the appellate authority of the L.I.C., the plaintiff has filed the suit and the Court has no jurisdic¬tion to decide the suit, as the said suit is barred under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. The learned trial Court on the above pleadings of the parties framed the following issues :

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable ?

2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit ?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?

4. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ?

5. Whether the suit is barred U/s. 34 of the Specific Relief Act ?

6. Whether the order passed by Defendant No.1 on 23.4.95 intimating the plaintiff that the Zonal Office has rejected his L.T.C. claim and to repay the advance amount failing which amount will be recovered the advance from his salary, is illegal and invalid ?

7. Whether the plaintiff i