Cwp No. 12791 of 2023 · Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2023

I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, and also given by my thoughtful consideration to the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. MOHIT GOYAL 2023.10.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12791-2023

6. It is settled law that an interim order is not a precedent and this Court would not be bound by an interim order passed in another Writ Petition.

7. Admittedly, all the petitioners are working as clerks and assistants. They have been given charge of performing their duty at two schools falling in the same place. The orders specifically mentioned that they would not be entitled for any honorarium in lieu of additional charge. The orders have been passed for administrative reasons and considerations.

8. As regards granting additional allowances like mileage allowances are concerned, it has been provided under the Rules that mileage allowance can be claimed in cases where the duty is being discharged at another place from the place of posting is more than 32 kms as per Rule 2.10 of Volume 3 Chapter II, which reads as under: “when a Government employee in receipt of permanent travelling allowance, travels on duty with proper sanction, beyond his sphere of duty, he may draw (a) mileage allowance by rail for the whole journey, and (b) mileage by road for such portion of the journey, including such part of it as is within his sphere of duty, as is in excess of 32 kilometers. This rule does not apply to a Government employee who travels beyond his sphere of duty in the course of journey from one place within that sphere to another such place. In addition, he may draw permanent travelling allowance for any day of his absence for which no mileage allowance is drawn.”

9. So far as travelling allowance is concerned, this Court finds that the claim of travelling allowance is wholly frivolous and misconceived. The petitioner has been posted to perform his duties at one place for a particular period and posted for performing his duties at both the places by a common order. MOHIT GOYAL 2023.10.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12791-2023

10. In view thereof, there is no occasion for granting travelling allowance to an employee.

11. The petitioner’s field of duties has been enlarged. The domain of empowering field of duties for any individual employee is exclusively an administrative function and there is no occasion for judicial interference in such aspects. No right of an employee is taken away nor it is a case where there is a bar under the Rules not to perform duty at two places at the same time. On account of administrative exigencies and paucity of staff, an employee can be directed to perform additional duties.

12. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects, the claim of the petitioners to restrain respondents from asking them to work at more than one school is wholly misconceived and is not acceptable.

13. There is no arbitrariness or illegality found.

14. The petitioners appear to be persons who do not want to work. If any of the petitioners does not want to work, the authorities can take appropriate action against them in terms of the Conduct Rules governing them. A Writ for such purposes would not lie and is held to be wholly frivolous.

15. Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE July 20, 2023 Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? 2. Whether reportable? Yes/No Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2023.10.19 09:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document