Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Navratan vs Deptt Of Electronics Information ... on 17 March, 2026
Item 51/C-6
O.A. No.1878/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1878/2024
This the 17th day of March, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member(A)
Mr. Nav Ratan
S/o Late Sh. Khacheru Singh
R/o A-120, Sector-22, NOIDA,
Gautam Budh Nagar,
Retired Employee of ERTL(N)
(Through Mr. Nav Ratan)
.... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Nav Ratan Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Ministry of Electronic and Information
Technology,
Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex,
New Delhi-110003
(Through Nominated Counsel)
2. Director,
Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), STQC
Directorate, Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology,
S-Block, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II
-110020.
.... Respondents
By Advocate : Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak)
Prash Prashant
Kumar
ant 2026.03.
Kuma 20
11:21:08
r +05'30'
2
ORDER (ORAL)
1. This Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief(s) "(i) Allow the present application in favour of application and against respondents.
(ii) Award reimbursement of LTC claim settlement (transportation charge) as per the existing 2017 rules as per which the claims of other officials were settled when the said bill was raised which is to calculated at the rate of Rs. 14,630/- instead of Rs. 4460/- per adult with the interest rate of 18% in the interest of justice.
(iii) Pass any other order/direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondent which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the present circumstances of the case."
2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was Ex-Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (ERTL) officer. During the year 2016 he took the LTC advance of Rs. 63,000/- and visited Lakshadweep along with his spouse. He prepared LTC bill and submitted the claim to the respondents on 21.11.2016. The respondents after due verification of the bill submitted the same to the Pay and Accounts Officer for passing the same. The latter returned the bill raising the objection that LTC package should not be claimed. The respondents who had by then allowed the claim of the applicant and paid him the entire amount of Rs. 63,000/-, in the first instance, decided to advise the applicant to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 22,044/- as guided by the PAO. The applicant who is appearing as party in person today before me, drew my attention to the information obtained by him through an Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.
Kuma 20 11:21:08 r +05'30' 3 application under the Rights to Information Act wherein total 08 names including that of the applicant are shown in the reply to the RTI request of the applicant dated 12.08.2019 wherein, out of the 08 names figuring in that reply except the name of Mr. Ravratan who is the applicant herein, all the remaining persons have been paid Rs. 14,000/- plus taxes whereas the applicant has been sanctioned only Rs. 4,460/. The applicant states that 30 people from various departments of Govt. Of India who travelled to Lakshadweep under LTC, through information received under RTI, he has found out that employees figuring against Serial No. 1 to 10 of Annexure A-1 are reimbursed as under:-
S.No. Employee Journey Total package Amt reimbursed Name Date cost (per for package tour person) per person for mentioned in travel between bill submitted Kochi to by govt. Lakshadweep & Servant back (Kochi to (Transportation Lakshadweep charge only) and back) 1 G.P. 23.03.2016 25908 14508 Prajapati 2 Sunita M 23.06.2016 25908 14508 Prajapati 3 Sarla N 26.10.2016 26125 14630 Chawla 4 Jayesh N 26.10.2016 26125 14630 Gor 5 Neelu Jain 26.10.2016 26125 14630 6 Anjana N 26.10.2016 26125 14630 Patel 7 Nisha M 26.10.2016 26125 14630 Satia 8 Afjal Das P 25.11.2016 26125 14630 Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.
Kuma 20 11:21:08 r +05'30' 4 9 Vikaskumar 11.11.2016 26125 14630 Patel 10 Pulsay 25.11.2016 26125 14630 Avinash Ravindra All of them have been reimbursed @Rs. 14,630/- towards package for their travel between Kochi to Lakshadweep.
3. The learned counsel for applicant also submits a certificate from the Society for Promotion of Nature Tourism and Sports (SPORTS) dated 18.11.2016 wherein they have clearly stated that the transportation charges of Rs. 14,000/- was incurred by the applicant as well per person.
4. The learned counsel for respondents, referring to the counter objecting to the contentions of the applicant, states that SPORTS was not an approved mode of transport LTC purposes during 2016 when the applicant undertook journey to Lakshadweep. It was only because the applicant was retiring on 31.08.2017, in order to avoid delay, the claim was settled using the prevailing rate as of 2008 and in respect of other officers who had travelled in the year 2016-17, and who all have been sanctioned of Rs. 14,000/- plus as fairy charges, their claim were settled in 2018 after clarification received from DOPT. The learned counsel for respondents states that the recovery has already started and they take the stand that the once the claim has been closed, it cannot be reopened at any cost.
5. We have heard the parties for both the sides and with their assistance perused the pleadings on record, I find that the action of the respondents in granting the entire amount of Rs. 14,000/- to the other seven persons mentioned in the letter No. SAC/ACCTS/RTI/2017-18 dated 19.07.2017 and not granting the same to the applicant amounts to discrimination and Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.
Kuma 20 11:21:08 r +05'30' 5 violative of the Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution and they cannot be permitted to take an adamant stand that once an issue is closed, it cannot be reopened at any cost and for whatsoever reason. This Tribunal is appalled by the attitude of the respondents in making a senior citizen from running pillar to post for a paltry amount of Rs. 22,000/- for which he might have to spend ten times more money on litigation cost. I also find that the certificate issued by the SPORTS very clearly states that the applicant availed the LTC for going upto Lakshadweep and there are only two more modes for reaching Lakshadweep either by Sea or by Air and if the applicant is not permitted to travel by sea on the ground that SPORTS is not an approved mode of transport for LTC during 2016 and only in 2018 it was approved as a mode of transport on account of clarification received from DOPT, seems illogical and unreasonable.
6. Under these circumstances, I have no hesitation to allowing the OA and grant the reliefs sought for by the applicant and direct the respondents to settle the LTC claim as per the existing 2017 rules which was subsequently affirmed by the DOPT by way of clarification and allow of Rs. 14,630/- instead of Rs. 14,460/- per adult. The OA is allowed.
6. No order as to costs.
(B. Anand) Member(A) 'Prashant' Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.
Kuma 20 11:21:08 r +05'30'