Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashok Kumar Gahlot vs Employees State Insurance Corporation ... on 10 March, 2025
1
Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2065/2024
Reserved on : 14.02.2025
Pronounced on : 10.02.2025
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Ashok Kumar Gahlot, Age 39 years
S/o Sh. Chetan Singh
R/o H.No. E-292, Street No 11, Ashok Nagar,
Shahdara. Delhi
... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Yogesh K Mahur, Mr. Harkesh
Prashar with Ms. Akanksha Dwivedi)
Versus
1. Union of India
through its Secretary
Ministry of Labour & Employment,
Shram Shakti Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC)
(Through its Director General)
Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Marg,
New Delhi 110002
3. Medical Suprintendent ESIC Hospital,
Jhilmil, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Satish Kumar Dutta)
2
Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024
ORDER (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A):-
The OA has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking direction to the respondent to reimburse the amount claimed in respect of LTC availed by the applicant to the full extent and adjust the same against advance already availed by the applicant
2. The Factual matrix of the case is that the applicant is working as Bearer with Kitchen/Dietetics at the ESIC Hospital Jhilmil, New Delhi, under Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India. In the month of September 2018 he applied for LCT to travel Haveloc (Andman Nicobar Islands) availing the LTC facilities for the block year 2014-2017 extended upto December 2018, vide his application dated 09.09.2018. The mode of travel as mentioned by the applicant in his LTC application form was as follows:-
(i) Delhi to Chennai by AC-III Tier
(ii) Chennai to Portblair by Air in Economy Class
(iii) From Portblair to Haveloc (Andman Nicobar Islands) by Ferry 3 Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 The estimated expenditure for two adults and two children on travel by various modes of travel are as follows:-
Mode of Journey Price in Rs.
Travel
AC-III Tier New Delhi to Rs. 13320/-.
Chennai
by Air, Chennai to Rs. 1,20,252/-
Economy Portblair
class
By Ferry Portblair to Rs. 2730/-
Haveloc
(Andman
Nicobar Islands)
Rs. 1,36,302/-
2.1 The respondents after examining the documents
submitted by the applicant sanctioned 90% of the estimate of Rs. 163,302/- that is Rs. 1,22,672/- on 22.09.2018. The applicant claims that he has duly performed the travel alongwith his family members from 25.09.2018 to 04.10.2018 by consuming his earned leave for the said period. He had also submitted the relevant Air tickets and boarding passes which are annexed as Annexure A-3 (Colly). After scrutinizing of his papers, the respondents vide letter dated 14.02.2024 did not give final approval to the LTC claim by the applicant and ordered to recover Rs. 1,22,672/- already paid to the 4 Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 applicant as advance in respect of undertaking, along with penal interest. The applicant made a representation to the respondents on 30.03.2024 (Annexure A-5) requesting to withdraw the recovery order issued vide impugned order dated 14.02.2024. However, the respondents did not accede to the request of the applicant. Being aggrieved he has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"i) Quash and set aside the impugned order No. F. No. 114.A. 20/11/79/98 ΟΚΗ 1102/16/02//2024 dated 14.02.2024 passed by the Respondents vide which recovery of the LTC amount of Rs. 1,22,672/-
along with penal interest has been imposed on the applicant.
ii) Direct the Respondent to pay the remaining amount of the claim as submitted by the applicant against the LTC Claim.
iii) Direct the Respondents not to recover any penal interest on the LTC amount already paid to the applicant.
iv) Cost of the proceedings may also be awarded to applicant;
v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may also be passed in favour of the applicants." 2.2 The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant had undertaken the Journey from New Delhi to Portblair and further to Haveloc (Andman Nicobar Islands). He has purchased tickets from Spice Jet and he has submitted the proof of journey by submitting the Boarding passes which 5 Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 are annexed as Annexure A-3 (Colly). He submits that the applicant directly purchased the tickets from airlines itself i.e. Web Portal of Spice Jet Airlines and in view of this he has not violated any guidelines regarding the LTC Rules. The recovery order dated 14.02.2024 is bad in law because the order of recovery has been issued without any Show Cause Notice and no reason has been assigned as to why this amount will be recovered from the applicant. 2.3 The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that there is minor deviation from the travel plan by the applicant. This is because of last moment change and availability of train tickets in AC-III Tier from Delhi to Chennai. Instead of the approved plan, the applicant travelled by Air from Delhi to Portblair and then further to Haveloc (Andman Nicobar Islands). Moreover, the amount claimed by the applicant is not significantly different from the amount for which the LTC advance was sought. The applicant sought LTC advance with an estimate amount of Rs. 1,36,302/- whereas he submitted a claim of LTC for 1,49,400/-. The applicant has not booked the tickets from any unauthorized agent but directly through the website of the Air lines. In support of his averments, 6 Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 learned counsel for applicant draws strength to the following judgments:-
(i) OA No. 947/2018, Raj Kumar Nirala and Ors. Vs. The Director, NITR & Anr. Operative pars of the same are reproduced as under:-
"17. Having considered the above mentioned and submissions made by the learned counsels, it is evident that the applicant did travel and availed the LTC benefit. The tickets purchased were also in order. The only irregularity therein was not purchasing the tickets from authorised agency or Air Lines directly. It could possibly be on account of unawareness of the rules as stated by the applicants. This has also not been pointed out at the time of reimbursement of their claims by the respondents. In view of the above, the applicants are entitled to the similar relief as has been granted by this Tribunal in OA No. 2537/2016 and uphled by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the above referred order dated 13.03.2019.
18. It is also obvious that the applicants are not entitled to the entire amount as claimed by and reimbursed to them but only to the extent that the amount is equivalent to the fare of Air India Tickets for these journeys if the same had been purchased from Air India. The respondents are, therefore, directed to work out the amount as per the fares if the tickets had been purchased from Air India directly and reimburse to the applicant only that amount. The balance amount, over and above that if already paid shall however be reimbursed by the applicant or recovered from their salaries by the respondents. Reimbursement would, thus, be the amount payable to the applicant had she/he purchased the tickets directly from Air India or authorised agent. Other entitled amount paid towards LTC and earned leave etc. shall not be recovered from the applicants.7
Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024
19. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The OA is partly allowed with the above directives. shall be no order to costs. There"
(ii) OA No. 3805/2022, Rambir Vs. Union of India & Anr., order dated 23.12.2022. Operative para of the same is reproduced herein:-
"5. In view of limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, the OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the applicant's aforesaid pending representations, Annexure A-4 (Colly), by passing a reasoned and speaking order by following principle of natural justice, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
(iii) OA 2876/2021, Karamvir Singh and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., order dated 23.12.2024. Para 9 of the same is reproduced herein:-
"9. We observe that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered in Ajay Kumar (supra), directing the respondents to adjudicate upon the claim of the applicant. This may not be in accordance with the amount payable based on the price of the air ticket that could have been charged by an authorized travel agent, but the respondents must recover, adjust, and deduct from the applicant the excess amount paid for such tickets. The respondents shall take corrective measures and pass an appropriate order after making the necessary deductions and adjustments, comparing the price as prevalent directly from the airline. This exercise will be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, and the balance amount of LTC, if any, shall be refunded or adjusted accordingly. The applicant shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits."8
Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 (iv) OA No. 809/2021, order dated 15.09.2022, wherein in similar circumstances this Tribunal has allowed the
applicants therein full reimbursement of their LTC claims though they have not booked the Airlines Tickets through authorized agencies but actually conducted the travel. Paras 7 and 8 thereof are reproduced herein:-
"7. It is evident that the applicants admittedly did not purchase the tickets from the aforesaid authorized agents. However, various decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has turned down such plea of the departments and allowed the payment of the amount spent by the employees in purchasing the tickets.
8. In view of the above, as well as keeping in view catena of judgments of this Tribunal and of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this Tribunal feels that the OA deserves to be allowed, the same is accordingly allowed and all the impugned orders including the impugned order dated 13.03.2021 is set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the amount so claimed by the applicants, subject to the applicants producing all the requisite proof of their travel such as Boarding Pass etc., to the respondents. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
(v) He further cited the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Joginder & Another Vs. Govt, of NCTD W.P.(C) No. 3106/2019 wherein the Hon'ble High Court has ordered that that recoveries in respect of LTC where actually travel has been undertaken should not be insisted upon and the amount 9 Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 which will be certified by the authorized agency of Govt. of India shall be paid to the applicant.
2.4 In all the aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for applicant claims that the Applicants/petitioners thereof have not purchased their tickets from authorized travel agent namely Ms. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., M/s Ashok Tour & Travels Ltd. and IRCTC Portal. However, their claims were allowed by the aforementioned judgments/orders. Particularly, regarding the minor irregularity of violation of OM dated 09.09.2016 issued by the DOPT regarding entitlement of employees for air travel for LTC to North East Region, J&K and the Andman & Nikobar Island. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Joginder and Ors (Supra) has specifically in para 14 held that:-
"14. We are of the considered view that the circular is meant to be obeyed and followed scrupulously and that there was no reason for the officers to not have complied with the terms of the circular. While the initial stand of Mr. Chhibber that since the petitioners had already travelled and paid the amount to their travel agents, the full amounts should be reimbursed to them is without any force; in our view, interests of justice would be served if the respondents reimburse to the petitioners their claims towards LTC as per the amounts payable according to the price of air-tickets charged by authorized travel agents, and recover/adjust/deduct from the petitioners the amounts in excess of such price, that may have been paid to the petitioners."10
Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 2.5 Similarly the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No.
6070/2023, Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr.
Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors., order dated 09.05.2023. Para 10 of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"10. In the case in hand, the respondents are working as Para Medics which is a Group-C post. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the respondents have made a claim for LTC of a higher amount than they would have paid to the authorised travel agent. So in that sense, by booking from a website, the respondents have made a claim of equivalent amount which they would have made, had they booked their tickets from authorised agents. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal need no interference except in the eventuality, the petitioners / Corporation is of the view that the claim of the respondents towards LTC is not as per the amount payable according to the price of air tickets that would have been charged by the authorised travel agent, recover/ adjust / deduct from the respondents the amount excess of such price. To that extent, the order of the Tribunal stands modified. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from today and the balance amount of LTC, in the eventuality payable be paid to the respondents within a period of four weeks thereafter. 11. With the above, the writ petition and connected applications are dismissed"
In view of the aforequoted judgments by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and orders by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant should be allowed the reimbursement of LTC claim as submitted by him.
11
Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the O.A. He submits that the applicant
in present OA has not come to this Tribunal with clean hands. He got his LTC advance giving a particular route plan which is the shortest route to Delhi to Haveloc (Andman Nicobar Islands). He changed his travel plan and mode of travel without taking due approval from the competent authority. The applicant has not purchased the air ticket from the approved agent as per the DOPT OM dated 09.09.2016. The respondents tried to get details of actual vouchers from the applicant and from the Spice Jet, however, they could not get any clarification from the applicant nor from the Airlines. The applicant has submitted an undertaking at the time of getting the LTC advance that any amount which is not permissible shall be recovered from him. Under such circumstances, the respondents have no option but to reject the claim of the applicant and order recovery of the advance given to the applicant for LTC purposes. In support of his averments learned counsel for the respondents cites the following judgments:
12
Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024
(a) Order of this Tribunal in OA 3791/2015 Alok Saxena Vs. Union of India and Anr., dated 16.11.2018. Operative para of the same is reproduced as under:-
"8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the prayer that the impugned order dated 11.9.2015 be set aside. The OM dated 6.2.2014 which has been sought to be challenged is found to be in accordance with the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules and revision of pension has been done as per the said provisions. Further in 18 view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh's case (supra), this Court does not find any merit in this case. Accordingly, the present OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs."
(b) OA No. 310/01325/2019, R. Balkrishnan Vs. UOI, dated 02.03.2022. He particularly refers to para 17 thereof, which is reproduced as under:-
"17. In the circumstances, impugned orders dated 30.08.2019 and dated 07.09.2019 are set- aside and it is directed that the respondent shall be entitled to recover from the applicant only the difference, if any, of the price of air- tickets as per the authorized travel agencies and the price of air- tickets reimbursed to the applicant. Further-more, since the claim for penal interest has been made on the basis that the entire LTC reimbursement was liable to be refunded and that the applicant had willfully omitted to refund the entire sum, this Tribunal is of the view that no penal interest be levied provided the applicant refunds the amount, if any found payable, within six weeks of the respondents raising a written demand in that behalf upon the applicant. This is 1) for the reason that the amount refundable, if any, will only now be quantified pursuant to this order once the 13 Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 respondents raise the written demand. It is declared that neither penal interest nor leave encashment is due from the applicant. If, however, the applicant does not pay-up within six weeks as aforesaid, the applicant would be liable for interest at 2% above the prevailing GPF interest rate, for the period of delay."
3.2 In view of above, learned counsel for respondents submits that both the judgments have held that the orders by the respondents to recover the advance amount from the applicants therein are legitimate and therefore, the respondents are right in rejecting the claim of the applicant and ordering recovery of the advance already granted to the applicant.
Analysis 4.1 I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels carefully and perused the records of the case thoroughly. 4.2 In the instant case, the applicant has committed two irregularities in respect of his LTC travel as well as submission of claims.
(i) the applicant while availing the advance for LTC submitted a particular travel plan. He was to travel by AC-III Tier from New Delhi to Chennai and from Chennai he has to take flight to Portblair and subsequently take the ferry to Haveloc (Andman Nicobar Islands). Instead, without approval of the 14 Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 Competent Authority, he has travelled by Air from New Delhi to Portblair and subsequently Portblair to Haveloc (Andman Nicobar Islands) by Ferry.
(ii) The applicant has not purchased the Air Tickets for the approved route/flight path from Delhi to Portblair from an authorized Agent approved by Govt. of India. 4.3 The authorized Agents are Ms. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., M/s Ashok Tour & Travels Ltd. and IRCTC Portal. Now, the question arises is whether these above mentioned irregularities committed by the applicant who is a Bearer in the Canteen/Kitchen of the respondents would warrant forfeiting his claim for LTC and whether the respondents are entitled to recover the advance already given to the applicant. The respondents have not denied that the applicant has actually undertaken the travel by Air and subsequently by ferry to Haveloc (Andman Nicobar Islands) from Delhi. Their contention is that the applicant has changed his travel plan without approval of the competent authority and purchased the tickets from unapproved agent. In this regard, learned counsel for applicant has fairly cited the judgments and orders by various Courts including the judgment by Delhi High Court in Joginder (Supra). This kind of irregularity 15 Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 committed by the applicant, as per the aforesaid judgment the applicant is not entitled for fully reimbursement of the claim for LTC. However, as it is apparent from all these judgments that the applicants/petitions thereof have been allowed to be reimbursed the LTC claim particularly cost of the Airlines tickets to the extent which would be given by the authorized travel agents on behalf of Govt. of India. I find no reason to defer from this line of approach. Considering the fact that the applicant is an employee in the lowest rank in the hierarchy of the employees in the organization, and he has actually undertaken the travel which is proven by the copies of Boarding Passes he has submitted as Annexure -3 (colly), he deserves to be treated in a similar manner. Accordingly, he is at least entitled to get reimbursement of the tickets which would have been the cost of purchasing the tickets in the Sector in which he travelled from Delhi to Portblair. 4.5 In view of above, the OA is allowed. The respondents are directed not to recover the LTC advance already given to the applicant. They should reconsider the final amount of LTC settlement after taking the appropriate certification from any one of the authorized travel agent namely Ms. Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd., M/s Ashok Tour & Travels Ltd. and IRCTC Portal. 16
Item No.32/ C-3 OA No.2065/2024 regarding the approximate cost of travel by economy class by Air from New Delhi to Portblair. In view of the fact that there are a good number of private Airlines and Indian Airlines has also been privatised, the least cost fare which would be obtained from the authorized travel agencies as mentioned above, should not be restricted to Air India only. After getting such information or certification from the authorized travel agent, the respondents shall recalculate the final amount of LTC claim to be reimbursed to the applicant and adjust this amount against the advance already taken by him. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Chhabilendra Roul) Member (A) /daya/