Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ramesh Kumar S/O Shri Chand vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 11 April, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI OA No.2087 of 2012 Orders reserved on : 05.03.2013 Orders pronounced on :11.04.2013 Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Honble Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) 1. Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Chand, R/o Village Parnala, P.O. Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar, Haryana. 2. Mahavir Singh, S/o Shri Bharat Singh, R/o Village / P.O. Vandh, Tehsil Lsrana, District Panipat, Haryana. 3. Bhoop Singh s/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, R/o Village Parnala, Post Office Bahadur Garh, District Jhajjar, Haryana. 4. Sahab Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan, r/o Village and P.O. Ladsoli, District Sonepat Haryana. 5. Rajpal Singh S/o Sh. Ram Bhullar Singh, R/o Village Hasan Pur, P.O. Burad, District Sonepat Haryana. 6. Jitender S/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh Singh, R/o Village/P.O. Lakhan Majra, District Rohtak, Haryana. 7. Jagbir Singh S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh R/o Village /PO Bhat Gaon, District Sonepat, Haryana. .... Applicants ( By Advocate Shri Ravindra S. Garia) VERSUS Delhi Transport Corporation Through its Chairman, Head Quarter, D.T.C., I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110001. .. Respondents ( By Advocate : Ms. Arti Mahajan ) O R D E R Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) :
This joint Application filed by seven applicants herein is directed against the orders of the respondents Corporation, as at Annexures A/1 and A/2 collectively by which the applicants are required to deposit LTC advance within a week of the receipt of the said orders, failing which the same has been directed to be recovered from their respective salaries along with 12% interest + 2% penal interest. The reasons underlying the said orders have been that the applicants got booked the respective LTC tickets from an unauthorized agency in violation of LTC Rules and travelling agent from which tickets were booked are not authorized to verify the AIR tickets as per the LTC rules. These orders are being challenged by the applicants herein on the ground mentioned in para 5 of the Application.
2. The Application is opposed by the respondents on the ground, inter alia, that in the sanctioning letter for LTC advance it has been clearly stipulated that in case the conditions stipulated therein are not being complied with and/or rules and regulations for grant of advance being violated the sanctioning authority has an option to charge penal interest as per the rules. It has further been submitted that guidelines for LTC advance/final settlement of LTC claim in the respondents Corporation expressly provide that LTC tickets to be booked directly from Railway/Air lines counters/ authorized travel agents as circulated by the Govt. of India from time to time and ensure that actual amount paid by them is printed on the tickets. Both these conditions are not satisfied in the present case and, therefore, the respondents Corporation is well within its competence to issue the impugned orders requiring the applicant to deposit the amount of LTC advance and in case of failure to do so, recover the same with interest/penal interest.
3. The reasons underlying the impugned orders have not been controverted by the applicants either in their Application/rejoinder or at the hearing of the Application. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that primary reason for the respondents to order recovery from the applicants has been that actual journey was not verified by the airlines concerned. However, this has now been verified by the said airlines. He submitted certificates issued by spiceJet with regard to the applicants certifying that the passengers mentioned therein completed their travel with spiceJet as per the details given therein. The applicants counsel further stated that these certificates indicate the amount as stated in these certificates and the balance, if any, would be deposited by the applicants concerned as per the rules. This was strongly opposed by the respondents counsel.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant made earnest plea that lower rung officials holding the post of Conductors and Drivers in the respondents Corporation are not very well versed with the rules governing the leave Travel Concession. They have indeed actually traveled and declining the LTC claim on the technical ground that tickets were not purchased from Railway/Air lines counters/ authorized travel agents would cause serious financial prejudice to them. The respondent is competent to relax this technical requirement and should reimburse the actual fare of their LTC journey instead of calling upon the applicants to deposit the whole amount of LTC advance. As a matter of fact, the applicants have requested the Depot Manager for sympathetic consideration of their request. He has drawn our attention in this regard to the copies of the letters which have been filed by the respondents with their counter reply, as at Annexure R/11 (Collectively).
5. The learned counsel for the respondent Corporation claimed that the impugned orders are perfectly in order as per the rules and within the competence of the respondents Corporation. she referred to in this regard the case of Radhey Shyam and ors. vs. DTC in OA No.863/2012 decided vide Order dated 21.12.2012 wherein similar orders as are impugned in the present Application have been upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in which one of us, namely Honble Shri Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) has been a party.
6. Admittedly, the applicants have not purchased the tickets directly from Railway/Air lines counters/ authorized travel agents, which is one of the necessary conditions for availing the LTC benefits. Non-compliance of this condition itself would be sufficient to decline the LTC claim by the applicants. Even the Sanctioning Letter for LTC advance clearly stipulates that if the conditions contained in the said letter or in the Rules or Regulations relating to grant of advance is violated, the sanctioning authority would be in its competence to charge penal interest as per the rules.
7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties at length. We have also carefully perused the records of the case, particularly, those relating to the provisions of availing LTC benefits.
8. The impugned orders passed by the respondents have been issued in accordance with the Rules and Regulations governing the LTC benefits for employees of respondents Corporation. Since one of the conditions requiring purchasing of LTC tickets from Railway/Air lines counters/ authorized travel agents has not been complied with, it will be open to the sanctioning authority to decline the LTC claim. The question of reimbursing the actual amount of travel would not arise in such a case when LTC benefits have not been availed by the applicant as per the applicable rules. The issue raised herein is already covered by Order dated 21.12.2012 in OA No.863/2012 (Radhey Shyam and others vs. DTC). Insofar as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicants with regard to reimbursement of the actual amount paid for the journey as now verified by the airline concerned by relaxing the rule as a one time measure, it would be for the applicants to take up this matter separately with the respondents Corporation for their consideration.
9. In view of the aforesaid and for parity of reasons as contained in Radhey Shyams case (supra), we find the present Application bereft of merit. The Application is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(Sudhir Kumar) (Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma) Member (A) Member (J) /ravi/