The applicants' case is that they are regular employees of respondent with effect from 1-10-1970 and were entitled to the recreation allowance upto one month's salary for every 3 years as per order Exh. A-2 dated 22-4-1969 and were paid recreation allowance for two cycles. The respondent changed the recreation allowance rules as per office memorandum dated 7-5-1977 Exh. A-5 according to which they were entitled to half month's salary as recreation allowance every year with effect from 1-5-1977. It is claimed by the applicants that they are not paid half salary as recreation allowance for the year 1977 as per order Exh. A-5 for which this claim is filed after grievance notice.
2. The contention of the respondent is that the applicants were paid recreation allowance for first cycle for the period from 1-7-1973 to 30-6-1976 and the second cycle starts with effect from 1-7- 1976 for which the applicants were paid recreation allowance of one month's salary. According to para. 4 of the office memorandum dated 7-5-1977 Exh. A-5 the applicants were entitled to half month's salary as recreation allowance after 2 years of the second cycle, i.e. After 30-6-1978 and as such they were not paid recreation allowance for 1977.
3. S. Azam Hussain applicant No. 1 has given affidavit on behalf of the applicants and has admitted to have received two recreation allowances for two cycles in 1973 and in October 1976. Applicant has produced documents Exh. A-1 to A-13. He has also referred about settlement between the respondent and M. C. P. Central Employees Federation which refer only about payment of recreation allowance as per rules. As per Office order dated 6-5-1978 Exh. A-11(i) the recreation allowance of half month's salary was payable after 30-6-1978, to those workers who had drawn recreation allowance under previous scheme for the cycle from 1-7-1976 to 30-6-1979.
4. The contention of the respondent is that the applicants were entitled to recreation allowance as per letter Exh. A-5 upto half month's salary after 30-6-1978 and as such they were rightly not given recreation allowance for the year 1977. Mr. Gul Mohd. Qureshi, Personnel Officer has given affidavit to support of the respondent and has produced documents Exh. R-1 showing the payment of recreation allowance to the applicants.
5. Admittedly the applicants were made regular on 1-10-1970 and continued in service till May 1977, and onward. According to statement Exh. P-1 the applicants were paid first recreation allowance in the months of March to June 1974 while the second recreation allowance in the months of January/February and September 1976. The contention of the respondent is that the first cycle started from 1-3-1973 to 30-6-1976 and the second cycle started from 1-7-1976. The applicants were entitled to recreation allowance of one month's salary in 3-years service as per office order dated 22-4-1969 which does not show that it was necessary for grant of the recreation allowance that the workers must have rendered 3-years regular service and the same was to be excluded for the purpose of recreation allowance as done by the respondent by allowing first recreation allowance for the cycle from 1-7-1973. As a matter of fact the applicants were entitled to first cycle after their regular service on 1-10-1970 till 30-6-1973 which appears to have been paid in 1974 while the applicants were entitled to recreation allowance in second cycle for the period from 1-7-1973 to 30-6-1976 which appears to have been paid to the applicants in the year 1976 as per statement Exh. R-1. Thus the payment of the second cycle of the recreation allowance cannot be treated as for the cycle starting from 1-7-1976 but the same was actually for the cycle ending 30-6-1976 or at the most 31-12-1976. Thus the applicants had drawn the recreation allowance for the second cycle - which period has expired and so the contention of the respondent that the period. Extended upto 30-6-1978 in para. 4 of letter dated 7-5-1977 Exh. A-5 cannot be accepted. The applicants will therefore' be entitled to half month's salary as recreation allowance under letter Exh. A-5 which was the guaranteed and secured right of the applicants.
6. It is also asserted by the respondent that the application is time barred which contention cannot be accepted as the grievance notice Exh. A-8 was given on 23-1-1978 within 3 months of the cause of action which arose on 31-12-1977. Thus the application is within time.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the evidence I come to the conclusion that the respondent has illegally not paid half month's salary as recreation allowance for the year 1977 to the applicants which should be paid within one month as the same is the guaranteed right of the applicants as discussed above. Application is thus allowed.