The High Court of Jharkhand has clarified that when an employee is assigned to work at a location other than their original posting for specific days, entitlement to travelling allowance arises based on attendance and actual work performed, even if documentary proof of mode of transport is not produced. The judgment affirms the binding nature of government resolutions governing allowance disbursement, and holds that non-production of additional proof is not grounds for rejection in such assignments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/1431/2025 of PRADEEP KUMAR JHA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND |
| CNR | JHHC010067672025 |
| Date of Registration | 20-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed |
| Judgment Author | Sri Ananda Sen, J. |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Jharkhand; persuasive for others |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms government resolution dated 27.03.2018 on allowances |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether an employee assigned temporarily to work at another location is entitled to travelling allowance in the absence of travel documents, provided actual work and travel is undisputed. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that rejection of a travelling allowance claim solely on the ground of non-production of documentary evidence of transport is untenable when the assignment, attendance, and actual travel are not in dispute. The relevant Government Resolution mandates payment of Rs. 12 per kilometer for travel by autorickshaw or personal scooter. The court emphasized that since the employee was only temporarily assigned for specified days (not permanently posted), and his physical attendance at the new location was undisputed, the allowance must be granted as per the resolution. Calculation is to be strictly done in accordance with the days attended and the prescribed rate. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Government Resolution dated 27.03.2018 regarding travel allowance; facts on record showing assignment and attendance. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a clerk, was directed to work two days a week at Basiya Project, requiring regular travel from his original posting. He claimed travel allowance for these journeys using his own transport. The claim was rejected by authorities solely for want of documentary travel proof, despite no dispute on the assignment or actual travel, and the 2018 Resolution setting allowance rates for such cases. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and service authorities in Jharkhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, administrative bodies, service tribunals |
| Follows | Resolution dated 27.03.2018 of the Government of Jharkhand regarding travel allowance |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court clarified that the absence of documentary proof of travel does not defeat a claim for travelling allowance when the work assignment, attendance, and actual travel are undisputed.
- Government resolutions prescribing allowance rates are binding and must be strictly followed.
- The judgment reinforces that rejection of claims must be based on substantive grounds, not merely procedural lapses if essential facts (posting, attendance, assignment) are not disputed.
- Fooding allowance entitlement was also recognized when associated with government-directed travel and assignment.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner was assigned to work at Basiya Project two days per week, necessitating travel from his primary posting.
- His claim for travel allowance was rejected because he did not provide documentary evidence of travel.
- The State produced the Resolution dated 27.03.2018, which provides for specific travelling allowance rates for travel by autorickshaw or personal scooter.
- The court found that there was no dispute about his attendance and work at Basiya; only the mode of proof was questioned.
- Emphasizing substance over form, the court held that rejection solely on the absence of transport documents was improper when travel and work assignment were undisputed.
- The court directed that calculation and payment must be made strictly as per the 2018 Resolution, considering the actual days of assignment.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- He was assigned to work two days a week at a different project, necessitating travel.
- The travel was undertaken using his own transport.
- Rejection of the allowance claim was solely due to the absence of travel documents, not due to lack of attendance or work.
Respondent (State)
- The claim was rejected for want of any document supporting the transportation.
Factual Background
The petitioner, a clerk, was directed to work two days a week at Basiya Project apart from his main posting. He travelled regularly for this assignment using his own transport and claimed travelling allowance. The District Social Welfare Officer, Gumla, rejected the claim on the grounds of non-production of documentary travel evidence, even though the assignment and attendance were not disputed. The matter was brought before the High Court for redress.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment relies on a Government of Jharkhand Resolution dated 27.03.2018, which prescribes a rate of Rs. 12 per kilometer for employees travelling by autorickshaw or personal scooter on government assignment.
- The Resolution forms the basis for entitlement and calculation of travel allowance.
- No additional statute or constitutional provision was interpreted in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were introduced; the court adhered to established writ petition procedure and directed compliance with the relevant government resolution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reinforces that government service allowance resolutions must be strictly applied, and rejection on insubstantial procedural grounds is not permissible.