Delhi High Court
Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. vs Shakuntala Devi on 13 March, 2019
Bench: Vipin Sanghi, Rekha Palli
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.03.2019
+ W.P.(C) No.2072/2019 & C.M. Nos.9685-86/2019
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Adv. with
Mr.N.K. Singh, Adv.
Versus
SHAKUNTALA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (Tribunal) in OA No. 2537 of 2016, whereunder the Tribunal has partly allowed the original application filed by the respondent/applicant and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 68,325/- towards the cost of the three air tickets for the journey undertaken by the respondent along with her two family members from Delhi to Port Blair while she was in service.
2. The respondent who was working as a Deputy Nursing Superintendent (Group B) had, in October 2012, availed LTC for visiting Port Blair along with her two family members. After the WP (C) No.2072/2019 Page 1 of 4 completion of the journey, she was paid a sum of Rs.1,62,216/- as per the claim made by her.
3. When the respondent retired from service on 31.05.2015, upon reaching the age of superannuation, she was served with a Memorandum on 07.08.2015 asking her to remit the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,62,216/- along with penal interest on account of her journey of the year 2012. She was informed that the said amount had been wrongly paid towards her LTC claim even though she had not purchased the ticket from an authorised agent, as mandated under the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 02.12.2009. Since the respondent did not pay the said amount, the petitioner deducted an amount of Rs. 2,03,424/- from her gratuity (Rs.1,60,494 towards Principal and Rs.42,930/- towards interest @ 10.7%).
4. Aggrieved by the said deduction, the respondent preferred the captioned OA, which has been allowed by the Tribunal under the impugned order by observing as under:
"The matter was heard at length. It was admitted by the applicant that they had travelled to Andaman under LTC-80 Scheme even though the tickets were not purchased from authorised agencies as was prescribed under the provisions of LTC-80 Scheme (para 4 supra). However, the advance drawn and the claim was already settled in 2012 itself with total amount of three tickets being Rs.1,60,494.
However, since the tickets were not drawn from the authorised agencies, the respondents have subsequently disallowed the same and recovered the entire amount from gfratuity. However, it is not the case of the respondents that the applicant has not travelled at all.
It is seen from the reply submitted by the respondents that Air India charge was Rs.22,775 per person and since three persons has travelled, an amount WP (C) No.2072/2019 Page 2 of 4 of Rs. 68,325 would have been spent by applicant had she purchased the ticket as per LTC-80. Thus certain overcharging is apparent.
However, be that as it may, it is taken that an amount of Rs.68,325/- for the three tickets, is due to be reimbursed to the applicant.
9. This is a case of a retired employee now and hence under the peculiar circumstances of the case (advance was drawn, journey was performed, expenditures were settled in the year 2012, complaints received subsequently and found to be correct, full recoveries were subsequently made in the year 2015), respondents are now directed to pay Rs.68,325/- to the applicant within a period of eight weeks for journey performed in 2012/ However, no interest shall be payable on this amount. Accordingly, OA is partially allowed with these directions/ No order as to costs."
5. The only contention raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once it was found that the tickets on which the respondent and her family members had travelled were purchased from an unauthorised agent, the respondent was not at all entitled to any reimbursement under the LTC scheme. Therefore, the direction of the Tribunal to pay her the amount which she would have been entitled to, had she purchased the ticket directly from Air India, is wholly unsustainable. He submits that the respondent being a government servant, could claim the LTC benefit only in accordance with the scheme which mandated that the tickets should be purchased either directly from the airlines, or by utilising the services of the authorised travel agents viz. M/s. Balmer Lawrie & Company, M/s Ashok Travels & Tours and IRCTC (to the extent IRCTC is authorised as per DoP&T OM No. 31011/6/2002-Estt.(A) dt. 02.12.09) and, thus, once it was an admitted position that she had purchased the ticket from an WP (C) No.2072/2019 Page 3 of 4 unauthorised agent, the petitioner was justified in deducting the said amount from the gratuity payable to her.
6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are unable to persuade ourselves to interfere with the impugned order. In view of the undisputed fact that the respondent, who stands superannuated w.e.f. from 31.05.2015, had indeed travelled to Port Blair along with her two family members by purchasing tickets from an unauthorised agent, as also the fact that there is no allegation of the tickets being fake or forged, the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned order holding that even though she may not be entitled to the amount of Rs. 1,62,216/- as had been claimed by her, she was entitled to receive at least the amount of Rs. 68,325/- i.e. @ Rs. 22,775/- per ticket which would be the amount payable to her had she purchased the tickets directly from Air India at the time of her travel, was fully justified in the facts of the case.
7. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition, being meritless, is dismissed along with the pending applications.
(REKHA PALLI) JUDGE (VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE MARCH 13, 2019 WP (C) No.2072/2019 Page 4 of 4