HAKIM ALI Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS,RAWALPINDI

The petitioner was employed against reserved quota of Ex‑Servicemen in the Railway as a Ticket Collector. However, he was denied the benefit of war service rendedered by him forcing him to file a suit before Civil Court. This suit was decreed and it was directed that the petitioner should be accorded due seniority keeping in view the war ‑ service. Consequently, the petitioner's seniority was revised and he was promoted as Special Ticket Examiner. The arrears of pay were given to him under the orders of the Court of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Sargodha, dated 10‑12‑1974. However, his claim for grant of travelling allowance was turned down.

2. The petitioner then approached Junior Labour Court, Gujrat, for redress of his grievance by moving an application under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This application was dismissed both on merits as well as on point of limitation on 30‑4‑1975. The learned Junior Labour Court held that the petitioner was entitled to be paid ordinary daily allowance but he was not entitled to the grant of travelling allowance in terms of para.210‑R‑1 of Establishment Code Volume I inasmuch as he had actually never travelled during the relevant period.

3. The appeal filed by the petitioner failed before the Punjab Labour Court No. 2 vide order dated 15‑7‑1975. Hence this writ petition.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was prevented from performing duties of a Special Ticket Examiner for no fault of his own during the relevant period and, therefore, could not be denied the financial benefits to which he would have been otherwise entitled during the intervening period due to illegal refusal on the part of the authorities to accord him his due seniority and promotion. The petitioner had been willing and ready throughout to perform the duties of the higher post i.e. Special Ticket Examiner.

5. I am afraid, there is no force in this contention. It is true that the petitioner had been, unjustifiably not granted his due seniority and promotion yet the fact remains that during the relevant period he did not actually perform the travelling duty. It is not denied that even if the petitioner had been on the due date granted promotion to the next higher post of Special Ticket Examiner, yet he could have been asked to perform duties which did not involve travelling. The relevant rule quoted by junior Labour Court is as under:

"210. Where a railway servant is promoted or reverted or is granted an increased rate of pay with retrospective effect no revision of claims of travelling allowance is permissible in respect of the period intervening between the date of promotion or reversion or grant of increased rate of pay, and that on which it is notified unless it is clear that there has been an actual change of duties."

I agree with the interpretation placed upon it by the said learned Court while holding that the petitioner was not entitled to travelling allowance and no illegality has been, pointed out in the impugned order justifying interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. No order as to costs.

H.B.T./H‑58/L ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.