Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ashwani Kumar vs M/O Urban Development on 18 October, 2022
1
Item No. 22 (C-3) O.A. No. 2719/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2719/2019
This the 18th day of October, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
Sh. Ashwani Kumar Soni,
Aged years - 57,
S/o. Late Sh. K. L. Soni,
R/o. - Type IV,-42, President Estate,
Sch 'B', N. D.-1100.
Working as DTP Operator Group -(B) ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Pushpinder Yadav)
Versus
1. The Secretary,
Government of India,
Ministry of Urban Development
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Director of Printing,
Government of India Press
Ministry of Urban Development
'B' Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi - 110 001.
3. The Manager/Incharge,
Govt. of India Press
Rashtrapati Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 004. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mira for Mr. H. K.
Gangwani)
2
Item No. 22 (C-3) O.A. No. 2719/2019
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J) Brief facts of the case are that the applicant, who is working as a DTP Operator under the respondents, had availed LTC in the year 2013. He travelled from New Delhi to Srinagar (J&K) and back, by air. He booked the tickets through a private agency namely GO Air Airlines. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that on re- examination and verification of tickets, the applicant, vide impugned order dated 27.02.2019, was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.86,203/- against the actual ticket charges of Rs.55,146/- including penal interest of Rs.31,057/-, which was deducted from his salary.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the recovery order, the applicant preferred a representation dated 07.03.2019 to the respondents, which has yet not been responded. Hence, the applicant approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs :-
"(i). To quash and set aside memorandum dated 27.02.2019.
(b) Direct the respondents to refund recovered amount from the applicants salary account. 3
Item No. 22 (C-3) O.A. No. 2719/2019
(c) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Reply has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that claim of the applicant was found to be fraudulent as the tickets were purchased from a private agency other than the authorized agents of the Government. With regard to the recovery from the salary of the applicant is concerned, it is stated that the same was initiated on the basis of O.M. dated 10.06.2019 of the Directorate of Printing, New Delhi. It is further stated that the ignorance of rule is no excuse and it does not justify that the applicant can indulge in misconduct. Para 4.12 of the reply reads as under :-
"Para 4.12 That the contents of this paragraph are wrong and incorrect hence are disputed and denied. It is submitted that the respondent no. 3 verified the LTC claims from 2010-11 onwards on the direction of Directorate of Printing, New Delhi vide O.M. No. G-
25014/47/DP/LTC/GIPMR/2018-19 B7A-1 dated 25.10.2018 which is earlier referred in Annexure R-I. It is further submitted that the said claim was found to be fraudulent/misrepresented as the claimant had not followed the prescribed LTC rule to purchase Airline tickets."4
Item No. 22 (C-3) O.A. No. 2719/2019 It is also stated that the applicant was supposed to book tickets from the authorized agents only namely from M/s. Balmer Lawrie and M/s. Ashok Tours and Travels, which the applicant did not do. Thus, under the rules, the applicant is not entitled to get the LTC claim and hence the same was rejected by the respondents and recovery was ordered.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and appreciated the legal position.
5. The short question arises before this Tribunal is whether the applicant is entitled to get the amount of LTC claim or not ?
6. To support his claim, learned counsel for the applicant mainly relied upon decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court respectively, which are enlisted below:-
(1) In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Waster) & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 334 and 5 Item No. 22 (C-3) O.A. No. 2719/2019 (2) In W.P. (C) No. 8985/2019, titled as Girish Chand and Ors. Vs. U.O.I.;
7. It is evident that the applicant admittedly travelled to Srinagar in accordance with special rules/guidelines framed by the Government in this regard, but he did not purchase the tickets from the aforesaid authorized agents on which ground the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant and directed him to deposit the amount spent on air tickets along with penal interest. It is seen that such a plea of concerned departments has been turned down by various High Courts and allowed the payment of the amount spent by the employees in purchasing the tickets. It is also noticed that this Tribunal has also taken similar view in Ajay Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [OA 257/2021 decided on 05.02.2021].
8. In view of the above, this Tribunal feels that the OA deserves to be allowed in terms of the above mentioned decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Court. The same is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 27.02.2019 stands set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to refund the amount so received from the applicant, within a period of 6 Item No. 22 (C-3) O.A. No. 2719/2019 six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ashish Kalia) Member (J) /Mbt/