ORDER
Dipak Misra, J.
1. As a singular question of law is involved in these writ petitions they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience, the facts in W.P. No. 2300/2000 are adumbrated herein.
2. The Indian Council of Research is an autonomous body which comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, Department of Agricultural Research and Education. The aforesaid body is one of the institutes working under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research. The respondent No. 1, Dr. S.C. Dubey and five others were approved by the competent authority for deputation for availing training in the United States of America. The order passed in that regard has been brought on record as Annexure P-2. The Government of India vide letter dated 19-8-1999 in the Ministry of External Affairs fixed the rate of daily allowance for various categories of officers proceeding on duty to the foreign countries. The said circular has been brought on record as Annexure P-3.
3. The respondent No. 1 applied for TA/DA advance at full rates but was sanctioned a sum of Rs. 5,98,599/- vide order dated 6-10-1995. The aforesaid sanction was subject to adjustment against final bill drawn in accordance with rules and guidelines. As the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to a second advance until the first advance was adjusted, penal interest was to be charged at the rate of 2.34% at the prescribed rate of interest under GFR 173 (2). It is putforth that the respondent No. 1 undertook his training abroad and was relieved from his duty in the afternoon of 30-10-1995 and his training came to end on 16-3-1996. However, at the request of the said respondent the deputation period was extended till end of October, 1996 on the condition that there was no financial liability on the part of the Government of India/Indian Council of Agricultural Research.
4. According to the petitioners the respondent No. 1 returned on 13-2-1996 and submitted a final bill on 17-2-1996. At the time of processing of the bill the respondent No. 1 was called upon vide order dated 2-8-1997 to refund a sum of Rs. 72,398/- inclusive of penal interest of Rs. 3,460/-. The respondent No. 1 preferred a representation on 5-8-1997 against the order of recovery and the said representation was rejected. Being dissatisfied the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 197/99. The Tribunal heard the said case along with three others and interpreting the relevant circular in Paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 came to hold as under:–
“5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. During the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicants mentioned that the case of payment for hotel charges has been decided by the respondents and they do not want to agitate the same further. Regarding D.A. it is clear from the perusal of the Ministry of External Affairs letter that officers drawing pay of Rs. 2800/- and above are entitled for full rates. Para 5 of this letter referred to by the respondents in their reply is relevant to only hotel entitlement and not for D.A. Further since all the applicants are drawing basic pay more than Rs. 2800/- p.m., they are entitled for full D.A. Regarding reimbursement for outward and inward journeys, the officers are entitled only for one fare of each side and if they are claiming two fares for return journey, it is not justified. Regarding penal interest, we find that the applicants have submitted their claims after one month although they were expected to submit their claims within fifteen days. The delay of a few weeks on account of the fact that the applicants were busy in preparing the report as ordered by the authorities to prepare within six weeks after return from abroad, appears to be justified. The respondents themselves kept the bills with them for several months and therefore, the applicants cannot be claimed for this period.
6. In view of the above, all the original applications are disposed of with the following directions :–
6.1. The applicants will be entitled for full D.A. as per the order of Ministry of External Affairs dated 19-8-91.
6.2. The applicants will be entitled for adjustment of one fare each for outward and inward journeys.
6.3. The respondents may favourably consider waiver of penal interest, if any, under their powers keeping in view of our observations in this regard.”
5. Mr. D’Silva, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no grievance as far as the directions contained in Paragraph Nos. 6.2 and 6.3 are concerned. His only grievance relates to the direction contained in Paragraph No. 6.1.
6. It is submitted by Mr. D’Silva that the respondent No. 1 had not gone abroad in a representational visit but had gone on training and, therefore, he was entitled to Daily Allowance by one step below his normal entitlement. To buttress his submission he has commended us to the letter circular dated 19-8-1991 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs. The learned Counsel submitted that if all the clauses of the circular are read in proper perspective, it would be plain as day that the likes of the respondent No. 1 are not entitled to full Daily Allowance but entitled to one step below their normal entitlement.
7. Sounding a contra note, Mr. K.S. Wadhawa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and is in consonance with the language employed in the circular and hence, should not be found fault with. The learned Counsel has canvassed that hotel entitlement at best may include accommodation and food which the respondent No. 1 availed in the accommodation provided by the University and he had paid for the same.
8. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to refer to certain aspects of the circular. Clause 2 of the circular deals with daily allowance for various officers as defined S.R. 17. If an officer draws a pay of Rs. 2800/~ and above, he shall be entitled to full rates as indicated in the annexure appended thereto. The said document has been brought on record. It is not disputed at the Bar, that the respondent No. 1 was an officer drawing a pay of Rs. 2800/- and above in the new pay scale. The Clause 3 deals with rates of daily allowance fixed for various cadres of officers which do not include any element towards cost of transport for official journey. The said clause is not relevant for our present purpose. The next clauses on which the learned Counsel for the parties have placed reliance are Clause 4 and Clause 5. To have an appropriate view of the matter we think it apposite to produce them in toto:
“4. As regards accommodation, no monetary ceilings have been prescribed for hotel rentals but instead a penal of hotels has been drawn for all the major cities of the world. The officer is required to arrange accommodation in a hotel on the approved panel and claim reimbursement of the actual hotel room rentals (including service charges, taxes and other charges). For the cities where approved panel of hotels has not been prescribed, the lowest hotel rate for particular grade of officer in the capital city of the country shall be the ceiling for hiring accommodation in a hotel in such cities. Where the officers makes his own arrangement for accommodation or where accommodation alone is provided free, he shall be granted daily allowance at the rate prescribed for his grade.
5. Hotel entitlement of officers going abroad on non-representational visits such as training courses of seminars shall be one step below their normal entitlement.”
9. It is submitted by Mr. D’Silva that hotel entitlement as used in Clause 5 means daily allowance and therefore, claim putforth by the respondent No. 1 and allowed by the Tribunal is totally erroneous. Per contra, Mr. Wadhawa has submitted that it is Clause 5 which will not be attracted but Clause 4 inasmuch as the respondent No. 1 had stayed in the accommodation provided by the University and which was made good by the said respondent. In this context we think it appropriate to refer to Clause 6 of the Circular. It reads as under:–
“6. Where an officer is treated as State Guest or has been provided both accommodation and meals free 25% of the daily allowance shall be admissible.”
On a perusal of this clause it become crystal clear, if a person avails accommodation and meals even free, he is entitled to 25% daily allowance. Submission of Mr. D’ Silva is that hotel entitlement would mean daily allowance, does not stand to reason. Similarly submission of Mr. Wadhawa that hotel entitlement is different from daily allowance is also beyond rationale. In this context, we think it appropriate to reproduce S.R. 49 which deals with daily allowance. It reads as under :–
“S.R. 49. A daily allowance is a uniform allowance for each day of absence from headquarters, which is intended to cover the ordinary daily charges incurred by a Government servant in consequence of such absence.”
If the said definition is understood in proper perspective, hotel entitlement, by no stretch of imagination, can be equated with daily allowance. It has to be a fragment/segment of the said allowance. It is putforth by Mr. Wadhawa that as the respondent No. 1 did not stay in a hotel, Clause 4 cannot be made applicable. Concept of hotel as defined in Collins Cobuild English Dictionary reads as under:–
“A hotel is a building where people stay, for example on holiday, paying for their rooms and meals.”
In the Random House Dictionary ‘hotel’ means a commercial establishment offering lodging to transients, and often having restaurants, public rooms, shops etc. Sometimes it is equated with guest house, hostel, motel, motor hotel and various other things. We are not saying that the provisions made by the University giving accommodation to the petitioner is a hotel arrangement. Indubitably it would amount to an arrangement for accommodation and food. Thus, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim to have the allowance at full rates but would be entitled to one step below from normal entitlement. The Tribunal has not appreciated the factual scenario and the circular in proper perspective and hence, the grant of full rates as indicated in the circular is erroneous. Accordingly we modify Paragraph No. 6.1 of the order of the Tribunal as under:–
“The respondent No. 1 shall be entitled to one step below his normal entitlement as far as accommodation and food are concerned. He will also be entitled to other daily allowance as admissible to him as per the circular.”
10. Accordingly the writ petitions are disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.