Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

Capt. I.V.G. Prasad vs The Secretary To Government

Madras High Court|21 August, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

The Original Application in O.A.No.618 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) is now writ petition in W.P.No.9421 of 2007 before this Court.
2.Heard the submissions made by Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Muthukumar, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
3.The petitioner filed Original Application before the Tribunal claiming non-sea going allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month for the period from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1997. The other prayer made in the Original Application is to quash the impugned order dated 09.02.2001 of the third respondent, refusing to treat the non-sea going allowance paid to him at the time of retirement for the purpose of surrender of earned leave payment.
4.The petitioner joined in the Tamil Nadu Port Service as Port Officer on 05.05.1980. Subsequently, he was promoted as State Port Officer in 1993. The Department of Port, Government of Tamil Nadu, was converted as Tamil Nadu Maritime Board with effect from 18.03.1997. He was paid non-sea going allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of constitution of the Tamil Nadu Maritime Board i.e. from 18.03.1997. By way of G.O.(Ms.)No.95, Transport (F2) Department, dated 14.05.1998, he received the non-sea going allowance until his retirement. Now, his claim is that he should be paid non-sea going allowance for his entire service as State Port Officer commencing from 01.04.1993 to 31.03.1997.
5.The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made in the application. The crux of the averments made in the reply affidavit is that the petitioner is not entitled to non-sea going allowance as a matter of right, since under the conditions of service, the said allowance is not payable to him. It is stated that the earlier State Port Officers viz., Capt.D.T.Ramachandran and Capt.N.Shanmuga Vandaiyar were also not paid the non-sea going allowance. The petitioner was paid the benefits which are admissible to him as provided in the service rules and those benefits are as follows:
(1)Highest scale applicable to the non-I.A.S., heads of departments (Rs.16400-450-20000). He was also allowed stagnation increment, as per rules in force.
(2)Rent free bungalow in the prime location of the city along with ministerial quarters. The property tax was also paid by the Government / Board.
(3)Staff car.
(4)Residential telephone connection as per the prescribed norms.
(5)Residential Office Assistant as per norms".
6.It is further stated in the reply affidavit that the State Port Officers were permitted by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.1855, Transport Department, dated 23.09.1987 to go to sea and earn better emoluments. If the petitioner did not choose to go to sea by availing the concessions given by the Government, he is not entitled to ask for some allowance for not going to sea. In fact, the reply affidavit has given an illustration, which is extracted hereunder:
"....For example, if a Government doctor pleads the Government that he would have earned more if he is allowed private practice and if Government allows the doctor to practice him privately the doctor cannot claim "non practicing allowance" by giving fake excuses....."
7.This Court put pertinent question to the learned counsel for the petitioner that on what basis, the petitioner makes the claim. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to answer. Admittedly, the said allowance was paid only after the constitution of the Board, pursuant to a decision taken by the Board. The petitioner cannot ask the same even for his earlier service, unless it is forming part of conditions of service. The petitioner cannot claim a benefit, when the same is not provided under the conditions of service.
8.In these circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
21.08.2009 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No TK To
1.The Secretary to Government Highways Department, Chennai  600 009.
2.The Secretary to Government Transport Department, Chennai  600 009.
3.The Deputy Secretary to Government Highways Department, Chennai  600 009.
D.HARIPARANTHAMAN, J.
TK W.P.No.9421 of 2007 21.08.2009
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Capt. I.V.G. Prasad vs The Secretary To Government

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
21 August, 2009