Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Sujata Chhabra vs Govt. Of Nctd on 17 August, 2022

                                1
Item No. 40                                   O.A. No. 1957/2021


                Central Administrative Tribunal
                  Principal Bench: New Delhi

                      O.A. No.1957/2021
                      M.A. No. 2474/2021
                      M.A. No. 2833/2021

                This the 17th day of August, 2022

              Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

  1.    Sujata Chhabra(1413076)
        Y-506, Siddarth Apartment,
        Pitampura, Delhi-110034

 2.     Archana Singh(1413076)
        27, Krishi Apartment,
        Sector-13, Rohini,
        New Delhi-110085

  3.    Praveen Malik(1413002)
        Flat No.492, Millenium Apartment,
        Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi-110086

 4.     Ravi Singh(1412248)
        S/o. Shri. Rajinder Singh Maan
        H. No.387, Prahladpur (Banger),
        Delhi-110042
                                              ...Applicants
 (By Advocate: Mr. Rajive R Raj)

                          Versus

 1.     The Director of Education
        Directorate of Education,
        Government of N.C.T OF Delhi,
        Old Secretariat,
        Delhi - 110054

 2.     The Principal,
        Sarvodaya Vidyalaya,
        Sharda Niketan,
        Delhi 110034

 3.     The Principal,
        Govt.Girls Sr. Secondary School,
        Anandvas.
        Delhi 110034
                               2
Item No. 40                                   O.A. No. 1957/2021




 4.     The Principal,
        Pratibha Vikas Vidyalaya
        Sector-11, Rohini, New Delhi 110085

                                              ...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H. A. Khan)
                                        3
Item No. 40                                             O.A. No. 1957/2021


                         ORDER (ORAL)

Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) M.A. No. 2833/2021 The applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 615 days in filing the O.A. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the condonation of delay application. From the perusal of records, there appears to be recurring cause of action since the respondents have not taken any decisions on the representation of the applicants till date. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which have been duly supported by an affidavit, the MA is allowed.

2. In the present OA, the applicants have sought following relief(s):-

"a) Quash and set aside the Impugned Orders No. Adm Memorandum No. SV/SN/2298 dated -01.07.2016, (Sujata Chhabra), No. Adm Memorandum NO. SV/SN/2297 dated

-01.07.2017 (Archana Singh), NO. Adm Memorandum No. SV/SN/2295 dated 01.07.2017 (Praveen Malik) and No. Adm Memorandum NO. SV/SN/2291 dated - 01.07.2016 (Ravi Singh) issued by the Respondents whereby the applicants have been subjected to Recovery of LTC amount on the pretext the tickets have not been purchased by the applicant from the authorized agency. The details S.NO. Particulars Date Amount

1. Sujata 05.08.2017 Rs.34,427/-

Chhabra

2. Archana 05.08.2016 Rs.84,491/-

Singh

3. Praveen 04.08.2016 Rs.65,584/-

Malik

4. Ravi Singh 04.08.2016 Rs.65,584/-

(b) To direct the Respondents to refund the aforesaid amount, recovered from Applicants, alongwith interest 24% from the date of receipt till the date of payment;

(c) Quash and set aside the Impugned Order Order no.SV/SN/3110 dated 05.07.2017 (Sujata Chhabra), Order no. SV/SN/3111 dated 05.07.2017 (Archana Singh), Order no. SV/SN/0017 dated 03.01.2018 (Praveen Malik) and Order no. SV/SN/3117 dated 05.07.2017 (Ravi Singh) whereby the Respondents have ordered Recovery of Penal Interest on account of Forfeiture of LTC amount which has already been recovered by the Respondents, the details are:

                 S.NO.    Particulars      Date          Amount      of
                                                         penal interest
                 1.       Sujata           24.07.2018    Rs.13,353/-
                          Chhabra
                 2.       Archana          26.07.2018    Rs.54,828/-
                          Singh
                 3.       Praveen          16.07.2018    Rs.23,263/-
                          Malik
                 4.       Ravi Singh       16.07.2018    Rs.23,263/-

(d) Direct the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the Applicant.

(e) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favor of the Applicants.

(f) Cost of the proceedings be awarded in favour of the Applicants and against the Respondents."

3. In the matter pleadings are stated to be complete.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are similarly situated persons and this case is squarely covered by the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WPC No. 12541/2019 titled as Mrs. Nirmal Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. The operative part of the said judgment reads as under:

"12. In the said matters, the attention of this court was drawn to a decision dated 22.08.2019 made by the Tribunal in the case of Raj Kumar Nirala and Ors. vs. M/O Health and Family Welfare & Anr. being O.A. 947/2018 and to decision dated 28.05.2018 in O.A. No. 3835/2017 titled Surender Kumar (Head Constable) vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors., in which the Tribunal itself had taken the view that in the circumstance where air-tickets were purchased from non-authorized travel agencies, the employee, though not entitled to the entire amount as claimed and reimbursed, would yet be entitled to the air-fare charged by Air India on the rationale that had the employee purchased the air-ticket directly from Air India or through an authorized travel agent, such amount have been reimbursed. In Joginder and Ors. (supra), we have finally taken the following view in relation to Circular/Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2010 :

"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."

13. In our view, the essential dispute in the present matter is the same as decided by us in Joginder and Ors (supra) since the question of what was recoverable from the petitioner would depend upon what the petitioner was entitled to receive towards LTC reimbursement. In our view, the mere fact that in response to notice 6 Item No. 40 O.A. No. 1957/2021 dated 01.07.2016, the petitioner refunded the entire sum of Rs.59,459/- i.e. amount demanded except the penal interest, cannot be taken to be an admission on the petitioner's part that she was aware that she was wrongfully claiming LTC by buying air-tickets from a non-

authorized travel agency.

14. In the circumstances, impugned order dated 05.09.2019 is setaside; and it is directed that the respondent shall be entitled to recover from the petitioner only the difference, if any, of the price of airtickets as per the authorized travel agencies and the price of air-tickets reimbursed to the petitioner. Furthermore, 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 petitioner had willfully omitted to refund the entire sum, we are of the view that no penal interest be levied provided the petitioner refunds the amount, if any found payable, within four weeks of the respondents raising a written demand in that behalf upon the petitioner. We say so for the reason that the amount refundable, if any, will only now be quantified pursuant to this order once the respondents raise the written demand. If however the petitioner does not pay-up within four weeks as aforesaid, she would be liable for interest at 2% above the prevailing GPF interest rate, for the period of delay."

5. Even though the respondents have filed the counter affidavit, however, learned counsel fairly concedes that it appears that the applicants may be covered by the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mrs. Nirmal Gupta (supra) as mentioned above.

6. Therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, the present O.A. is disposed of with a 7 Item No. 40 O.A. No. 1957/2021 direction to the respondents to dispose of the representations preferred by the applicants, in light of the judgment rendered in Mrs. Nirmal Gupta Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, as it appears that the applicants are identically situated persons, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from today.

There shall be no order as to costs.

7. Pending MA, if any, shall also stands disposed of accordingly.

                                             (Manish Garg)
              `                                Member (J)

/sm/dd/