Patna High Court
Bhakti Vinod PandeyversusThe Government of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim, rendering the administrative and Lokayukta orders valid.
Summary
The petitioner, a former ward servant of Nalanda Medical College and Hospital who retired on 31‑Oct‑2013, filed a representation in March 2018 seeking a one‑time leave travel allowance because his permanent residence was more than 20 km from his present address. The Superintendent of the hospital rejected the claim on the ground that the petition was filed more than four years after retirement and was unsupported by any documentary evidence, giving the petitioner a week to produce such proof which he failed to do. The petitioner also approached the Bihar Lokayukta, whose order of 3‑May‑2021 upheld the rejection for the same reasons. The petitioner challenged both orders by filing a writ petition seeking quashing of the orders and payment of the allowance with interest and compensation for harassment. The High Court observed that the petitioner had not produced any evidence of his residence or distance travelled and that the administrative authorities were justified in rejecting the claim; consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether a retired employee is entitled to a one‑time leave travel allowance when moving to a permanent residence more than 20 km away.
- Whether the administrative order rejecting the claim for lack of supporting documents can be quashed.
- Whether the Lokayukta's upholding of the administrative order is maintainable.
Subjects
- Leave Travel Allowance
- Retirement
- Superannuation
- Administrative Order
- Writ Petition
- Lokayukta
- Harassment Compensation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1179 of 2022
======================================================
Bhakti Vinod Pandey, Son of Late Ramakrit Pandey, Resident of Village-
Devkali, P.O.-Bir, P.S.-Dhanarua, District-Patna, Bihar-804451.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Government of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Head (Administration), Bihar Health Service, Patna-7.
4. The Superintendent, Nalanda Medical College and Hospital, Agamkuan,
Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, GP-12
Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to GP-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for
the following reliefs :-
“A. For quashing the office order vide
Letter No. 1646, Patna, dated 16/04/2018 as
contained in Annexure- 2 issued under signature
of Superintendent, Nalanda Medical College and
Hospital, Patna-7 by which claim of one time
travel allowance(After retirement) of petitioner
has not been accepted on the ground that the
voucher of the vehicle has not been submitted
and further quashing the order dated 03/05/2021
of Lokayukta, Bihar, Patna in Case no. 02/
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2022(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/5
Public (Health & Family Welfare) 04/2019 as
contained in Annexure- 6 by which claim of one
time travel allowance(After retirement) of
petitioner has been rejected and also for
commanding the respondent authorities to
immediately provide one time travel allowance
to the petitioner who has superannuated on
31/10/2013.
B. For commanding and directions be
given to Respondent authorities to immediately
provide one time travel allowance with @ 18%
interest along with compensation for harassment
to the petitioner.
C. And also for any other relief or
reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled
in the eye of law.”
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that having
retired as Kaksha Sevak (Ward Servant) from the Nalanda
Medical College and Hospital (NMCH) on 31.10.2013, the
petitioner filed a representation before the respondents on
21.3.2018 praying for payment of travel allowance after his
retirement.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that in case a person on his retirement moves from his present
residential address to his permanent address and the distance is
more than 20 kms, the person is entitled for travel allowance.
The petitioner residing at a distance of more than 20 kms from
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2022(3) dt.16-03-2026
3/5
his permanent address, he filed the representation praying for
grant of travel allowance. A copy of the representation has been
brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ application. It is
further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by
order contained in letter dated 16.4.2018 of the Superintendent,
NMCH, the representation of the petitioner came to be rejected.
Even the petition before the Lokayukta, Bihar was also rejected
by order dated 3.5.2021. It is these two orders i.e. order dated
16.4.2018 as also the order dated 3.5.2021, which are under
challenge in the instant writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
from perusal of the order impugned dated 16.4.2018 it would
transpire that except for a representation having been filed by
the petitioner making unsubstantiated statements therein, no
documents in support of the statements has been brought on
record. The representation of the petitioner for payment of the
Leave Travel Allowance was rightly rejected. There is no merit
in the instant writ application and the same be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the contents of the petition, it transpires that
much after his superannuation on 31.10.2013, the petitioner on
21.3.2018 (Annexure-1) filed a representation praying therein
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2022(3) dt.16-03-2026
4/5
that as he had to move more than 20 kms from his present
address to his permanent address, he be provided with the Leave
Travel Allowance.
7. The representation filed by the petitioner came to
be rejected by the order impugned contained in letter dated
16.4.2018. A perusal of the letter dated 16.4.2018 would show
that the reasons given therein for rejection of the petitioner’s
representation are firstly that the representation/petition has
been filed by the petitioner more than 4 years 4 months after his
date of retirement i.e. 31.10.2013. It further states that his
application (a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ
application) neither gives the details of his present place of
residence from where he moved to his permanent abode nor
does he give any further evidence in support of the address and
as to what distance the petitioner had to travel by what means.
The petitioner was given an opportunity to produce the
documents, vouchers etc. within a period of one week. The
petitioner not having been able to produce the same, no relief
was granted and as such the instant writ application.
8. It further transpires from the order of the learned
Lokayukta that in absence of any documents and for the reasons
noted in the order dated 16.4.2018, the said order was not
Patna High Court CWJC No.1179 of 2022(3) dt.16-03-2026
5/5
interfered with by the learned Lokayukta.
9. Having perused the contents of the petition and
especially the order dated 16.4.2018, no material having been
brought in support of the contentions/case by the petitioner, the
petition of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondents.
10. The Court finds no merit in the instant writ
application and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
U
Checking your session…