SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Dinesh Kumar & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
LPA-245 of 2023
Decided On : 03-03-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate; For the Appellant
For the Respondent: Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana with Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana, Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana

Headnote:(A) Haryana Civil Services (Allowances to Government Employees) Rule, 2016 - Rules 22 and 23 - Conveyance allowance - Appellants were denied entitlement to conveyance allowance due to lack of recommendation from the Head of Department and Medical Board - The court ruled that this procedural requirement must be fulfilled for eligibility. (Paras 1-3, 4, 6)

(B) Writ Petition - A writ can be issued to enforce legal rights when authority fails to act - Issued where a representation was pending without action from the concerned authorities. (Paras 2 and 6)

Facts of the case:
Appellants, both suffering from over 40% disabilities, sought arrears of Handicapped Allowance and conveyance allowance from the date of their appointments but were denied due to procedural shortcomings. Their representations were pending with the State authorities.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the dismissal of the writ petition was inappropriate as it emphasized the responsibility of authorities to act on applications from handicapped employees seeking their entitled benefits.

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to conveyance allowance and the proper course of action for their pending representation?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of action by the Head of the Department and Medical Board necessitated a revision of the previous dismissal, acknowledging the appellants' rights and the compassionate view that should be taken regarding disability benefits.

Result: Writ petition treated as a representation; necessary actions are to be taken by the Head of the Department within a specified time period.

Table of Content
1. appellants' claim for conveyance allowance dismissed. (Para 1 , 2)
2. procedures for grant of conveyance allowance outlined. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. writ petition treated as representation for action. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)

In the present appeal consideration is to the order of learned Single Judge, passed in CWP-1793-2018 decided on 01.02.2023. Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition held that there was no recommendation from the Head of the Department supported with the report of the duly constituted Medical Board for the claim of conveyance allowance since the appellants were agitating for the same from the date of their appointment. Resultantly, the writ petition was dismissed.

2. Apparently, the appellants were seeking arrears of the benefit of Handicapped Allowance from the date of their appointment along with interest. It is not disputed that representation dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure P-9) was also filed which was pending with the authorities as such. It is also a matter of record which was even noticed by the learned Single Judge that as per the Haryana Civil Services (Allowances to Government Employees) Rule, 2016 there is a procedure under Rule 22 for grant of Conveyance Allowance at the rate of 10 per cent of basic pay subject to minimum Rs. 1,000/- and maximum Rs. 2,000/- per month. As per Rule 23, the Head of the Department is to refer the case of the concerned Government employee which in the present would be the Orthopaedics Department. As admittedly, even as per the stand of the State, they are suffering from 40 % disability.

3. Rule 22 & 23 of Haryana Civil Services (Allowances to Government Employees) Rule, 2016 reads as under:-

"22. Conveyance allowance to blind and orthopaedically handicapped Government employees.-

(1) A Government employee working on regular basis, who is declared ?

(i) blind or having vision less than 3/60 of field vision less than 10 in both eyes by the Head of Ophthalmological Department of a Government Civil Hospital; or

(ii) orthopaedically handicapped with a minimum of 40% permanent partial disability of either upper or lower limbs by the Head of Orthopaedics Department of a Government Civil Hospital; or

(iii) orthopaedically handicapped with overall minimum 50% permanent partial disability of both upper and lower limbs together by the Head of Orthopaedics Department of a Government Civil Hospital; or

(iv) suffering from the spinal deformity causing permanent partial disability of above 40% by the Head of Orthopaedics Department of a Government Civil Hospital; shall, subject to provisions in these rules, be entitled to a conveyance allowance at the rate of 10 per cent of basic pay subject to minimum Rs. 1,000/- and maximum Rs. 2,000/- per month or as prescribed from time to time. The dearness allowance at the prevailing rate shall also be admissible on conveyance allowance.

(2) No conveyance allowance shall be admissible to-

(i) one eyed (partially blind) Government employee; or

(ii) those who covered under these rules but have been provided with the facility of vehicle at Government expenses for journey between office and residence.

23. Competent authority and procedure for grant of conveyance allowance to blind and orthopaedically handicapped Government employees.-

(i) The Head of Department concerned shall refer the case of the concerned Government employee to the Head of Opthalmological or Orthopaedics Department, as the case may be, of a Government Civil Hospital for obtaining their recommendations for the grant of conveyance allowance. In case he is declared blind or orthopaedically handicapped of the prescribed degree of disability, he shall be granted conveyance allowance with effect from the date of certificate of the appropriate medical authority.

(ii) The travelling allowance shall be admissible to the Government employee for the journey performed for obtaining recommendations of the appropriate medical authority.

(iii) The fee charge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top