Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Anil Kumar Sharma Aged About 34 Years Son ... vs Union Of India Through on 18 September, 2015
Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application 241/2013 Reserved on 11.9.2015 Pronounced on 18.9.2015 Honble Sri Navneet Kumar, Member (J) Anil Kumar Sharma aged about 34 years son of Sri K.M. Sharma resident of c/o Garrison Engineer (E/M) Lucknow Cantt. , Lucknow. Applicant By Advocate:- Sri S.P.Singh Versus Union of India through 1. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. The Garrison Engineer (Utility) 56 APO, Ambala Cantt- 900241. 3. The PCDA (WC) Sec-9C, Chandigarh. Respondents By Advocate: Ms.Manorama . ORDER
BY HONBLE SRI NAVNEET KUMAR, MEMBER (J) The present O.A. is preferred by the applicant u/s 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
i) to quash the impugned copy of impugned order dated 31.3.2013/01.04.2013 and order dated 8.4.2013 contained as Annexure No. A-1 and A-2 to this OA.with all consequential benefits.
ii) to release the payment of LTC claim /bills claimed by the applicant with interest @ 12% PA as the matter has been badly delayed by the respondents.
iii) Any other relief which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
iv) cost of the present case.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant availed Leave Travel Concession (LTC) and purchased the tickets of flight from authorized agent namely Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. which is duly registered with IATA (International Air Transport Association) and after completion of journey, the applicant submitted the claim but the same was not approved and it is indicated in the order dated 31.3./1.4.2013 that the tickets have not been purchased from the authorized agent, as such, the claim cannot be admitted. The applicant feeling aggrieved by the said orders, preferred the present OA.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a letter dated 26th July, 2012 filed along with counter reply as Annexure No.A-6 wherein it is indicated that as per rule individual can use service of authorized travel agent. It means that Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. is also an authorized travel as similar to M/s Balmer lawrie and Company and M/s Ashok Travel & Tours. On this count, the learned counsel for applicant has categorically indicated that since the ticket purchased by the applicant from Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. is also recognized as an authorized agent similar to M/s Balmer lawrie and Company and M/s Ashok Travel & Tours. Therefore, the impugned order as contained at Annexure No.A-2 to the O.A. is misconceived and is liable to be quashed.
4. On behalf of the respondents, reply is field and through reply, it is indicated that Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. is not an authorized agency as per the Govt. orders and this fact was communicated by the office of PCDA (W.C.) Chandigarh to the Garrison Engineer Utility Ambala Cantt. as such the claim of the applicant could not be accepted and was accordingly rejected. Learned counsel for respondents failed to indicate any satisfactory reply in regard to contents of letter dated 26th July, 2012 filed along with the counter reply.
5. On behalf of the applicant, Rejoinder is filed and through Rejoinder Reply, mostly the averments made in the O.A. are reiterated and contents of counter reply are denied.
6. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
7. The only question which requires determination in this case whether the ticket so purchased by the applicant for his LTC is purchased by the authorized agent or not. Admittedly, the applicant purchased the tickets from Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. and impugned rejection order shows that since the same is not purchased from M/s Balmer lawrie and Company or M/s Ashok Travel & Tours, as such the claim cannot be admitted. The respondents letter dated 26th July, 2012 contained at Annexure No.A-6 to the counter reply, though it is an internal correspondence but it is indicated in the said letter that as per rule individual can use service of authorized travel agent. It means that Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. is also an authorized travel agent similar to M/s Balmer lawrie and Company and M/s Ashok Travel & Tours. As Air India does not have any authorized travel agent.
8. The bare reading of the aforesaid letter is clear to the extent that the firm namely Creative Travel Pvt. Ltd. is an authorized agency as such rejection of the claim of the applicant is unjustified. Accordingly, I am inclined to interfere in the present O.A.
9. The impugned orders dated 31.3./1.4.2013 as well as order dated 8.4.2013 as contained at Annexure No.A-1 and A-2 are quashed. The respondents are directed to process the claim of the applicant and make payment as per rules.
10. With the above observations, O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.
(Navneet Kumar) Member (J) HLS/-