1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Appellant in person Rafiz Tariq Naseem for Respondent. Date of hearing : 29th September, 1983. MUHAMMAD IRSHAD KHAN (MEMBER).‑The appellant, a Railways employee, was appointed on deputation as Officer on Special Duty in the Railway Wing of the Ministry of Communications in October, 1971, and worked as such till the 24th May, 1975, when he was reverted to the Pakistan Railways, Lahore, his parent establishment. He drew a sum of Rs. 500 as a T. A. ~ Advance from the Ministry of Railways and, after joining his parent establishment, preferred his claim for transfer T. A. ere. whereby he inter alia claimed Rs. 1,500 and Rs. 648 on account of the Transfer Grant and Transportation of personal effects by road, respectively, which was refused by the respondent‑department .on the ground that, according to the Railways Rules, this claim was not admissible to Railway Officers on transfer from Railway to the Ministry and vice versa. In support of their stand the respondent‑department have placed reliance on Daily/Travelling Allowance Rules for Pakistan Railways employees.

2. We have carefully perused the said Rules but could not find anything on the basis of which the claim of the appellant could be validly disallowed. It was, however, elucidated on behalf of the respon dent‑department that the wisdom behind the non‑admissibility of the Transfer Grant to the Railways employees is that they are issued free transfer passes for such journeys and that the Railway being a transport organization and having its own operation and maintenance units spread over the entire system, provides the facilities of transportation of personal effects at a liberal scale to its employees on their transfer from one station to other, and as such they have not to face disturbance on such transfers as much as other Government employees have to undergo. We do not see much force in this contention too. For, the Government servants are allowed the Transfer Grants in addition to the normal travelling allow ances etc. and not in lieu thereof. In any case, no specific provision has been shown to us which may either allow or prohibit the Transfer Grant to a Railway deputationist with the Ministry of Railways on his transfer back to his parent establishment. We, therefore, would give the benefit of doubt to the employee and would accordingly hold that the appellant was) entitled to the Transfer Grant.

3. Regarding admissibility of charges of the transportation of the personal effects it was brought to our notice by the respondent‑department that the appellant, on his reversion, was entitled to free passes of two wagons and motor‑truck or a horse‑box or a cattle‑wagon for the traps‑1 portation of his personal effects by Rail from Rawalpindi to Lahore., Therefore, the appellant's claim for transportation of personal effects byB road was disallowed. This contention appears to carry force and we' accordingly uphold the decision of the department disallowing this claim.

4. The appeal is partially allowed to the extent that the decision of disallowing the Transfer Grant to the appellant is hereby set aside and we direct that the same should be paid to him. A. E. Appeal partly allowed.