The appellant, who is employed as Assistant Station Master in the Pakistan Railways, was directed to work at Mirpur Mathelo Station from February, 1981 upto 1st June, 1981. He submitted a T. A. Bill duly countersigned by his Divisional Transportation Officer for the entire period of his posting at Mirpur Mathelo, as according to him he worked at that place as Relieving Assistant Station Master, but his claim was disallowed by Respondent No. 2, the Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, except to the extent of T. A. For 10 days, on the ground that the balance of the claim was not in accordance with the rules applicable to the appellant. The appellant preferred,- a grievance petition against the rejection of his T. A. Claim to the learned VIIth Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition on the ground that if the payment of T. A. Is withheld in part or in whole, no guaranteed right of the employee is infringed to entitle him to prefer a grievance petition.
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. Mr. M. A. Hakeem, the learned representative for the appellant, submitted that according to the rules applicable to the appellant, he was entitled to T. A. For the whole period of his posting at Mirpur Mathelo Station, as he was posted there as Relieving Assistant Station Master. In support of his contention, the learned representative relied upon rule I (b) of section I (Allowances) of Advance Chapters 2 and 3 of the Personnel Manual of Pakistan Railways. The said rule reads as follows :- "(b) Allowance to relieving staff-(i) Except as otherwise provided in (ii) below and in rule 15 of this section, former Class III , and IV staff whether classified as relieving staff or though not classified as such but used for relieving purpose when sent away from their headquarters on relieving duty will be eligible, subject to the sanction of the competent authority to draw the usual travelling allowance admissible on tour except when it can be foreseen that they will be required to relieve at a particular station for more than six weeks in which case they should be temporarily transferred and no daily allowance will then be admissible for the period of temporary posting at the new station."
3. A bare perusal of the above rule indicates that the claim of the appellant is not well founded. The rule clearly provides that if it can be foreseen that a relieving employee will be required to relieve at a particular station for more than 6 weeks then he should be temporarily transferred to that station and no daily allowance will be admissible. In the instant case although the order of posting of the appellant at Mirpur Mathelo Station has not been produced or filed, the admitted position is that he was posted at Mirpur Mathelo and worked there from February, 1981 upto 1st June, 1981 i.e. For a period of about 4 months. There is nothing to indicate that it was not foreseen that the appellant will be required to work at Mirpur Mathelo for over 6 weeks. In the circumstances rule 1 (b) reproduced above appears to be of no help whatsoever to the appellant and I am inclined to agree that the objection of the respondent No. 2 was well taken that the appellant was no A entitled to T. A. Beyond the first period of 10 days and that even if the appellant was posted as a Relieving Assistant Station Master, the order of his posting as such would be contrary to rule 1 (b) and no T. A. Beyond the period of 10 days will be admissible.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.