1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUSHTAK ALI KAZI (CHAIRMAN). The appellant having been aggrieved by an order, rejecting his claim for Travelling Allowance from the place of his retirement to the place where he has settled after retire ment, namely, Madina Munawara has preferred this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. The facts in brief are that the appellant retired from service as Additional Secretary, S & G. A. D. on 14th March, 1982 on attaining the age of 60 years. Since the appellant intended to settle at Madina Munawara he requested for payment of his pension in Saudi Arabian Currency. On 24th June, 1982 the appellant alongwith his family and dependants left Karachi for Madina Munawara. He then sent a T. A. Bill to the Accountant‑General, Sind, through the Chief Secretary claiming his T. A. expenditure of about Rs. 23,

000. The claim was passed on to the Finance Department for sanction. The Secretary, Finance Department, however, expressed his inability to agree to allow T. A. to the appellant from Karachi to Saudi Arabia on his retirement, for reasons for rejection reference was made to the clarification contained in an office memorandum on the subject issued by Government of Pakistan, dated 16th February, 1983. The appellant has accordingly preferred this appeal. It is the case of the appellant that under the West Pakistan Travelling Allowance Rules, rule 4, 3(i) "a Government servant retiring from Government Service may draw travelling allowance as on transfer from his last headquarters to the place where the controlling officer certifies he is due to settle. The appellant has argued that on retirement he had declared his intention that he wanted to settle down in Saudi Arabia and he had requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Sind, who was his Controlling Officer, to forward his T. A. Bills to the Accountant General, Sind, alongwith the required certificate that he was due to settle at Madina Munawara. That the rule did not contain any limits in respect of the place of settlement to be within or without Pakistan. It has, on the other hand, been argued on behalf of the respondents that this rule has been adopted from a similar rule made by Government of Pakistan necessitated by the hardship faced by Government Servants from East Pakistan retiring at places in West Pakistan. That the words "due to settle down" actually meant 'the home town' of the civil servant according to his declaration or other evidence available with the Controlling Officer. Our attention has been drawn in this connection to the office memorandum issued by Government of Pakistan, Finance Division, dated 16th February, 1983. In his memorandum the rule has been further clarified that for the purpose of T.A. on retirement, the persons about to retire had to make a declaration in respect of their "home town". The Finance Department of Government of Sind while rejecting the claim of the appellant had also in their order referred to this memorandum and explained that tb9 Controlling Officer had to certify the place where the retiring officer was due to settle. That for this purpose the place should be home town of the civil servant. According to entries pertaining to the permanent address of the civil servant his service record and the declaration made for purpose of leave, travel concession etc. In case there was no such evidence with the Controlling, Officer, he had to obtain such declaration about the home town according to the instructions contained in the office memorandum issued by Government of Pakistan. Thus rule 4.3 of the Travelling Allowances Rules has been clarified and its application has been narrowed down to 'home town' regarding the place where the retired civil servant is due to settle down. It has been argued that this interpretation has been adopted after the case of the appellant. That since the appellant had shown his intention to settle down in Madnia Munawara he should have been allowed a certificate in respect of Madina Munawara and not for his home town at Village Tikhur, 15 miles from Hyderabad. The question, therefore, arises what must have been the intention of the framers of this rule. Was the intention to allow liberal concession to the retiring officer for settlement at place of his choice in a foreign country or was the intention to compensate him for the expenses of the journey he had to undertake on retirement from the place of his service to his home town, say in East Pakistan. The reply is obvious. The rule makers could not have intended to allow such liberal concession to retiring officers to settle anywhere on the globe. The inten tion was afterwards clarified in memorandum and the circular. The very fact that the Controlling Officer had to issue a certificate on evidence available with him, would show that the intention was not to allow the Travelling Allowance for any place where the retiring officer showed his intention to settle down on retirement. If that had been so, his mere declaration would have been sufficient to entitle him to this concession. The purpose of framing this rule was to enable the retiring officer to return to his home town and be compensated for the expenses after retirement: In the result we find no substance in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.