Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) The petitioners have sought for quashing the orders dated 21.08.2015 and 15.04.2016 passed by the Commandant 202 BN, COBRA, CRPF, Sunabeda, Koraput, Odisha (respondent no.9) pertaining to recovery of tour TA/DA, detachment allowances, hotel charges, diet charges etc. from the salary of the petitioners.
(2.) The brief facts as depicted in the writ petition that the petitioners were posted in 202 BN, COBRA Battalion, CRPF, Sunabeda, Koraput, Odisha on different posts during the course of their posting, availed the benefits of tour TA/DA allowances. Office memorandum dated 16.04.2009 vide Annexure-1 declares the rules regarding grant of Risk/Hardship based allowances to CPMFs personnel as per the recommendation of Sixth Central Pay Commission. According to the said of memorandum the petitioners can avail only one out of three allowances i.e. Risk Allowances, CoBRA Allowances and Detachment Allowances, out of which the petitioners opted for CoBRA Allowances. The respondent no.9 vide order dated 21.08.2015 and 15.04.2016 with intimation to the Inspector General of Police (STF), Jharkhand Ranchi and NSG Headquarter, New Delhi directed recovery of tour TA/DA, detachment allowances, hotel charges, diet charges etc. granted to the petitioners during the period of 2009-2012, from the salary of the petitioners on the ground that the officers availing CoBRA Allowances cannot avail tour TA/DA Allowances as evident from Annexure-2 series. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent no.9 for recovery of the allowances, the petitioners left with no other alternative remedy, has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner during course of hearing has strenuously urged that the order of recovery passed by respondent no.9 is not in accordance with law since tour TA/DA and detachment allowances are two different allowances granted for different purposes and are envisaged under different rules and the respondents authorities under mistaken impression, have directed to recover the tour TA/DA allowances. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the detachment allowances derives its authority from Rule 46 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 which is granted to the defense personnel's when they are posted outside the headquarters. Whereas the tour TA/DA allowance is granted by virtue of SR. 49 of Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules (FRSR) Part-II which is granted to meet the expenses incurred in following the departmental orders, which is refunded in the form of reimbursement. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the tour TA/DA allowances are not envisaged in the office memorandum as at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and against the provisions of law and the order of recovery is de-hors the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the action of the respondents smacks colorable exercise of power and total violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, this Court under Article 226 can exercise judicial review for interference in the impugned order of recovery vide Annexure-2 series.;