1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

52137 dt. 28-10-1991. Total: 56453.65"

12. It is further stated, that, the payment of 15s days DA., in lieu of Foreign Allowances, and House Rent Allowance was refused by the Head of the Mission on 26-8-1988, 12-2-1990 and again on 19-4-1991. The mysterious circumstances, under which the official managed to draw 50% of DA. for 15 days at Hague after the lapse of period of two and half years is not known to Audit. It has been vehemently contended that the claim was not only irregular, but also time-barred. Mission authorities were, therefore, not competent to make payment of .the time-barred TA./DA claims of the official. The payment was also against the instructions issued to all the Head of Missions abroad by the Director General (Ministry), Ministry of Foreign Affairs vide No.Rule-4/13/80 dated 5-11-19'81. .

13. It has further been pointed that appellant was transferred from Hague to Islamabad in June, 1994. He made a representation for the payment of balance 50% of DA for 15 days in lieu of house rent allowance and foreign allowance. His case was processed vide para. 233 of the office note. It was proposed to refer the case to the Mission for its settlement under the rules. This proposal was approved by the Director P-1I, on 15-7-1991 instead of referring the case to the Parep Hague, the Section Officer, Mrs. Iffit Khalid issued sanction vide No. Estt. (II-A)/4-44/73, dated 21-10-1991, allowing the appellant to draw 15 days DA. at full rate from 28-1-1988 to 12-2-1988. This action of the Section Officer was not covered by the administrative order of the competent Authority.

14. The appellant, was granted full DA. for the joining period of 6 days, on joining the Hague Mission on 28-1-1988. Thereafter, he was put in Hotel and its rent pre-repaid by the Mission with approval of the then Ambassador, since the residential accommodation at that time was not readily available, the appellant accepted not only the hotel accommodation, but also the Foreign 'Allowance.

15. This action on the part of the Mission was in accordance with the instructions contained in official letter dated 5-11-1981, the relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below:- "It is reiterated that provision of accommodation is the responsibility of the Mission, and the direct responsibility of the Heads of Mission whose decision in each case is final. Should an official refuse to accept the accommodation approved by the Head of Mission, the requirement of providing official accommodation having been met, the consequences must be faced by the official himself including disciplinary action for defying official orders."

16. From the above it becomes clear that, the action of the Mission was according to instruction, as such in order. The accommodation so provided in fact was not permanent, but rather stop-gap arrangement. The official ultimately was provided the required suitable accommodation after about 2 and half months.

17. The necessity of providing the temporary accommodation arose because, as explained in the said letter reproduced below: "It came to the notice of authorities that, in certain cases, the officials tried to delay acquiring of accommodation with intention to misuse the facility of daily allowance in lieu of Government Accommodation and Foreign Allowance. There were instances in which official accommodation had been acquired immediately after drawing the daily allowance for 15 days. The authorities also came across cases in which the accommodation was surrendered on one pretext or the other to enable the incoming officials to get the facility of daily allowance."

18. The appellant, has relied upon Ministry of Foreign Affairs No.M(11) 25/1/55, dated 12-7-1955 and No.Rules-4/15/63, dated 24-2-1964 for claiming the full DA. for 15 days. The relevant extract is reproduced below:-- "SI. No.97-(i) It has been decided that an officer or member of the Staff who is unable to find suitable residential accommodation immediately on his arrival at the new post is entitled to draw daily allowance in lieu of Foreign Allowance for himself, wife and children above 12 years at full rate and one half for children above 12 months for a period not exceeding 28 days (reduced to 15 days vide Ministry of Foreign Affairs No.Rules-4/11/67, dated 11-12-1971)."

19. However, the experience showed that this facility was being misused. This has been expressed in Tiara 3 of Foreign Affairs Circular No.12/17/75, dated 3-8-1976 (SL No.1983, (reproduced below)-.-- "It has been observed that the facility is often misused. The official generally stay in hotel and draw DA. for full 15 days period and move to the residential accommodation secured for them immediately thereafter. It would be readily appreciated that this attitude is against the spirit and the intention underlying the concession in question and runs counter to financial canons and proprieties. It results in substantial expenditure from public exchequer which could be avoided if due care was taken to ensure the residential accommodation for new arrivals in Missions was arranged without unnecessary loss of time before hand." It was, therefore, advised vide para. 4 of the said circular:- "In cases of replacement of officials the allotments occupied by the out going official should be retained for the incoming officials after receiving orders in each cases, from the Ministry so that latter have to stay in hotels only during the overlapping period." It was further advised vide para 6 of the said circular:-- "

6. The utmost care and economy must be observed in this regard and the procedure outlined in para. 4 above followed miticulously."

19. The letter dated 5-11-1981 mentioned above was the follow up of the previous communications in which, the Head of the Mission was made competent to decide, the temporary accommodation for the incoming officials, till, a permanent, suitable accommodation could be arranged.

20. The Hotel accommodation so provided to the appellant; for which, the rent was paid by the Mission, with prior approval of the former Ambassador, was in accordance with instructions contained in the said letter. As such he was not entitled to draw 15 days DA., in lieu of the house rent allowance and foreign allowance for the period from 28-1-1988 to 12-2-1988. The Audit has rightly pointed, that the DA: in question was not permissible under the latest rules.

21. However, the appellant, although during his stay in the hotel accepted the Foreign Allowance, later on demanded the 15 days DA. which the Mission refused rightly to pay vide letter dated 13-10-1988 stating therein, that, "Mr. Asghar Ali, Additional Assistant is informed that the accommodation to lodge him and his family for a period from 28-1-1988 to 31-3-1988 was hired as per rules and that the Ministry has held that you are not entitled to daily allowance for 15 days," and his attention was drawn to Ministry Circular dated 5-11-1981.

22. After some time, the appellant changed his stand and addressed a letter dated 8-2-1990, to the Head of the Mission Hague, stating therein, the circumstances, under which he was accommodated in hotel for about two months; and further stated as reproduced below:- "I did not claim full DA as the advance rents were paid by the Mission. I am, therefore, under the rules entitled to 50% DA. in lieu of Foreign Allowance (for non-provision of suitable residential accommodation) for stay in hotel which may kindly be ordered to be paid to me in accordance with the Ministry's decision dated 4-1-1990 to mitigate my hardships and suffering from more than two years."

23. In response, the Chancery informed the appellant vide letter dated 12-2-1990, that, the accommodation so provided should be treated as a case of provision of accommodation envisaged under para. 5 of the even number dated 5-11-1980. No DA., therefore, seem to be due.

24. However, the appellant managed to get 50% of the DA. amounting to S 3280.15, by the Mission through getting it issued instructions by the Ministry by telex in June, 1990, after the lapse of 2-1/2 years, although it was not in order under the rules it should have been claimed within a year and as such needed the approval of the competent Authority, but no such rules were observed.

25. After his return to Pakistan the appellant wrote a letter dated 16-1-1991, to the Section Officer, Establishment (II-A), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stating therein that, he was paid only 50% of DA. for stay in the Hotel at the instructions of the Ministry and further requesting that he might be paid full DA., as per rules on the analogy of the DA. paid by Mission to M/s. M. Aslam Rizvi and Shahryar Rashid, Councillors respectively on their stay in hotels. He further stated in the said letter, that if it was not possible to pay to him full DA. 'as per rules, then he would request that the 50% DA. was recovered from M/s. Aslam and Shahryar Rashid in conformity with said rules for justice and fairplay.

26. The record shows that Section Officer concerned submitted the case to the Director on 14-7-1991 vide para. 232-33/N of the file. In these paras Section Officer Establishment (II-A) proposed to ask Parep the Hague to settle the claim of the appellant as admissible under the rules. This para was approved by the Director in writing "as proposed." Parep the Hague vide their Letter NoAdmn.2/6/79-II, dated 19-4-1991 refused to make payment.

27. Although the Head of Mission' decision in the case of accommodation was final, therefore, once again the Mission refused to pay TA. bills once settled cannot be re-opened at any level, but then the Section Officer issued sanction letter bearing number Estt. (II-A)-4/44/73 dated 21 10-1991, allowing remaining 50% of the DA amounting to S 317150 to the appellant, stating therein "this issues with the approval of the competent Authority", although record shows, that it has not been approved by the competent Authority. As such the appellant drew full DA for 15 days amounting to S 6453.65.

28. After examining all the aspects of the case, we come to the conclusion, that, the appellant was provided accommodation with approval of the Head of the Mission, who was the competent Authority under the rules as per instructions contained in letter dated 5-11-1981. The appellant lived in the hotel and accepted the Foreign Allowance until, he got the suitable residential accommodation as such he was not entitled to the DA for 15 days and was rightly declared not permissible by the Audit under the rules. Later on he agitated and claimed initially for 50% DA for 15. days, which was refused first by the Mission as well as by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, however, the appellant later on managed to get remaining 50% of the DA. also although no competent Authority had approved it.

29. This claim was not only against the instruction contained in the Ministry circular dated 5-11-1981, but also was paid after a period of 2-1/2 years as such was not permissible under the rules. Besides this TA. Bill once settled cannot be re-opened at any time. Its settlement needs the approval of the Ministry of Finance.

30. This is very stated that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has been supporting the appellant all along despite the fads that it issued some instructions according to which, the claim in question was neat permissible but it issued other instructions to the Mission to pay appellant 50% of DA. in violation of its previous instructions and paid remaining 50% of DA. without observing rules. As such they violated the same instructions which were issued to the Mission to be complied with. This could be because they have been committing such irregularities in other cases as well, which the appellant, exploited to his benefit by quoting them, just to hide those cases. The appellant was allowed DA. which was not admissible under the rules as was in other cases. Authorities may like to look into the matter.

31. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in the case, and therefore, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.

32. Parties be informed. H.B.T./1098/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.