IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1538 of 2008(G)
1. P.GOPINATHAN, SENIOR MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,
3. SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.LAL GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :25/03/2009
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).1538/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a Senior Manager in the Punjab
National Bank and he is currently stationed at the
Regional office at Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioner, a
native of Kozhikode, was earlier posted at the Regional
office, Rajkot in Gujarat. Petitioner’s wife was
working as Administrative Officer in the Divisional
Office, Life Insurance Corporation of India at Rajkot.
Later during September, 2006, the petitioner was transferred to Kerala and posted at
Thiruvananthapuram. He had requested for a posting
in Kozhikode which is his native place. But his wife
had to remain at Rajkot till May, 2007, when she was
also transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Division.
Petitioner availed a Leave Travel Concession facility in
accordance with the LTC rules prevailing in the
respondent Bank, and visited Darjeeling in October,
2006. He along with his wife had travelled from
Thiruvananthapuram to Darjiling and back to
Thiruvananthapuram by air by availing the LTC
W.P.(C).1538/2008
2
facility. His wife had to remain at Rajkot till May,
2007 when she was also transferred to
Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, if
the family is not residing with him at the place of
posting, family can travel from the place of domicile
to join spouse enjoying Leave Travel Concession
facility and return back to the place of residence.
In the present case, the claim for the charges
incurred for the travel by the petitioner’s wife
from Rajkot to Thiruvananthapuram and back to
Rajkot, was rejected by the Bank on the ground
that the petitioner’s domicile is Kozhikode and the
LTC facility sought for in relation to his wife was
for the travel from Rajkot to Thiruvananthapuram
and back to Rajkot. This has been challenged in
the writ petition.
2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the Bank. Counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the third respondent.
3. That the petitioner’s domicile is Kozhikode is
W.P.(C).1538/2008
3
not seriously disputed. LTC was availed by the
petitioner and his wife, by accompanying him. They
had undertaken a trip to Darjeeling. Petitioner’s
claim was rejected in relation to the expenses
incurred on behalf of his wife because it was not a
travel which was undertaken from the place of
posting of the employee to the place of domicile. In
these circumstances, the stand taken by the Bank
does not warrant any interference.
4. Further I note that the petitioner’s wife is
also a fairly high placed employee, who was
stationed at Rajkot, in spite of the petitioner’s
transfer and posting at Thiruvananthapuram for
reasons of her own employment. I do not find any
ground to interfere with the stand taken by the
Bank. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs