IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.230/2021 Date of Decision: 27th October, 2025. R.K. Kaushik .....Appellant Versus UCO Bank and Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant: Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Jitender Pal Ranote, Advocate. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). The appellants, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgement and decree dated 01.10.2021, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, HP in Civil Appeal No.23- S/13 of 2020, affirming the judgement and decree dated 16.01.2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.2, Solan, District Solan, HP, in Civil Suit No.320/1 of 2014. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter in this judgment, the parties shall be referred in the same manner in which they were referred before the learned trial Court. The plaintiff, while serving with UCO Bank, was promoted and transferred from Solan to the Service Branch in Pune. Following a brain stroke, he was on medical leave from September 18, 2007, to January 22, 2008. During his absence, he was transferred first from the Service Branch, Pune, to Camp 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2 Branch, Pune, and subsequently to Chowpatty Branch, Mumbai, but did not join these postings due to his medical condition. 3. He was then transferred from Chowpatty Branch, Mumbai, to Shimla vide order dated January 17, 2008. Pursuant to this order, he was relieved from the Service Branch, Pune, on January 23, 2008, and was required to join at Shimla the very next day, January 24, 2008. To comply, the plaintiff arranged air travel from Pune to Chandigarh and a taxi from Chandigarh to Shimla, incurring travel expenses of ₹37,655, part of which was met from a travel allowance advance of ₹30,000 he had taken from the Service Branch, Pune. He submitted his travel allowance bills for reimbursement to the General Manager in Shimla on January 30, 2008, but these were not sanctioned on the grounds that his transfer to Shimla was made at his own request, rendering him ineligible for travel allowance and daily allowance. Furthermore, the advance of ₹30,000 was deducted from his account. The plaintiff contended that the non- reimbursement was illegal and claimed a total of ₹65,144, inclusive of interest, becoming due on January 31, 2008. 4. The defendants admitted the plaintiff's employment and his transfers but contested the suit, raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, limitation, misjoinder of parties, and cause of action. On merits, they asserted that the plaintiff was transferred to Shimla based on his own request and, as per bank rules, was not entitled to travel allowance or 3 daily allowance. They denied instructing him to join immediately on January 24, 2008, stating he could have availed joining time and that his hurried travel arrangements, involving costlier air tickets, were his own doing. Consequently, they justified the non-sanctioning of his bills and the deduction of the advance. 5. The following issues were framed by the trial Court on 28.10.2014: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of recovery of Rs.65,144/- (Rs.37,655/- as Principal and Rs.27,488/- as interest calculated upto 28.02.2014) along with future interest @ 12% per annum till its realization with costs, as prayed for.? OPP. 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of maintainability, as alleged ? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has not valid, legal and enforceable cause of action to file and maintain the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, as alleged ? OPD. 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation, and therefore, liable to be dismissed? OPD. 7. Relief. 6. After evidence and hearing, the trial court concluded that the transfer was on the plaintiff's request and that the onus was on him to prove his entitlement to the allowances, which he failed to do, leading to the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the First Appellate Court, arguing that the trial court erred in law by placing the entire burden of proof upon him regarding the bank's transfer rules and by failing to 4 appreciate that the defendants had not conclusively proven the transfer was on request or produced the specific rules denying him benefits. It was also contended that the trial court misread the evidence, including a letter from the Zonal Office which, according to the plaintiff, indicated the transfer was routine and not on request, and that the immediate joining order constituted a special circumstance warranting reimbursement. The First Appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal, leading to the present Regular Second Appeal. 7. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgements. 8. The core question for determination is whether the plaintiff was entitled to the reimbursement of his travelling allowance claim. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the onus was on the plaintiff to prove his entitlement to TA/DA despite the transfer being on his request, a burden he failed to discharge. Upon a perusal of the United Commercial Bank Officer's Service Regulations, specifically Chapter-VII dealing with "Journey on Transfer," Regulation 42(7.4) explicitly stipulates that where a transfer is treated to be at an officer's request, his entitlement to reimbursement of travel expenses shall be "as per rules in force from time to time." The very existence of this separate clause makes it evident that the general transfer regulations do not govern transfers made on request. The plaintiff failed to place on record 5 any other rules or regulations governing transfers on request that would entitle him to the claimed reimbursement. Therefore, the fundamental character of his transfer being on his own request is fatal to his claim for TA/DA, irrespective of the date on which he undertook the journey to join at Shimla. 9. The plaintiff's contention that the defendants could not issue a clarificatory letter dated January 18, 2008, stating that the transfer was on request and thus ineligible for TA/DA, is without merit. An administrative authority is fully competent to issue clarifications or alter administrative instructions to ensure they align with the governing rules and regulations, and such an action does not constitute an impermissible review of the transfer order itself. Furthermore, a significant technical flaw vitiates the suit as framed. The plaintiff's claim for reimbursement is directly impeded by the defendants' office order/letter dated January 18, 2008. Unless this order is declared illegal and contrary to the service regulations, the relief of reimbursement cannot be granted. The plaint, however, seeks no such declaratory relief, rendering the suit in its present form not maintainable. 10. On the issue of limitation, the cause of action for the plaintiff arose, at the latest, on January 30, 2008, when he became aware of the defendants' decision denying his TA claim. A suit for recovery must be filed within three years from the date the cause of action accrues. The mere sending of 6 reminders does not extend this period or revive the cause of action. The present suit was filed on March 10, 2014, which is clearly beyond the permissible period of three years and is, therefore, barred by limitation. The finding of the trial Court on the issue of limitation is erroneous and is hereby set aside. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the findings of the lower courts are upheld, though on differing grounds. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 27th October, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat/TB)