Janaki Ballav Mohanty vs Union Of India & Ors.

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

Upon hearing the parties, perused the records.

Turning focus to the factual narrative, it is worthy of being noted that the applicant undertaken official tour from 9th to 10th of January, 2020 and submitted the TA bill 30.09.2020. The said TA bill was returned to the applicant vide letter dated 12/13.11.2020 being submitted after the due date provided vide Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi OM No. 19030/1/2017-E-IV dated 13.03.2018. The applicant resubmitted the TA bill, explaining the delay in submission of TA bill, on 29.12.2020. According to the applicant, since his TA bill was not settled, as it appears, he preferred RTI appeal on 31.07.2021 and he received the reply thereon in letter dated 23.08.2021. He submitted another application on 01.12.2022 requesting settlement of his claim. Thereafter, in letter dated 06.12.2022 and 08.04.2024, he sought information under RTI Act, 2025 about the action taken on his TA bill and, in letter dated 13.06.2024, the CPIO intimated him that after scrutiny of the TA bill, it is found that the same is not submitted within the stipulated period and therefore, the office is not in a position to process the bill, however, file noting in this regard has not been made. Being aggrieved, applicant has filed this OA inter alia praying to direct the respondents to pass and make payment of his TA claim with 18% interest per annum by stating that the delay as raised in submission of TA claim is not justified because it was rightly intimated to him by the respondents department that the limitation of submission of TA claim operates from the date of the approved tour program and, in this case, he undertaken the tour on the oral approval of the competent authority, which was subsequently approved post facto in letter dated 02.09.2020 and he submitted the TA bill on 30.09.2020, which was well within the period of limitation provided vide OM dated 13.03.2018. Further, it is stated that in the rules as well as OM, relating to settlement of the TA claim of an employee, discretion is left with the competent authority to entertain and settle the belated TA claim being satisfied about the genuineness of the claim and valid reason for delay in preferring the claim. It is stated that the respondents department sat over on his TA claim illegally and arbitrarily and, therefore, kind judicial interference in the matter is needed for the ends of justice and removal of injustice caused in the decision making process of the matter.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents' department vociferously opposed the stand taken by the applicant in support of the relief claimed in the OA by highlighting the points noted in their counter to the effect that the tour program of the applicant from 09.01.2020 to 10.01.2020 from Central Hospital, Dhulian to LWO, Kolkata was approved by the competent authority. The applicant undertaken the tour but, instead of returning to headquarters after completion of the approved tour, he proceeded to Chennai on LTC for the block year 2018-21 and returned to his headquarters/Dhulian on 18.01.2020 even in absence of any such provision entitling an employee to proceed on LTC while on tour without returning to the headquarters. It is stated that as per the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure OMs dated 13.06.1967, 18.02.1976 and 13.03.2018, the TA claim of an employee is forfeited or deemed to have been relinquished if such claim is not preferred within 60 days succeeding the date of completion of journey. Since, the applicant submitted his TA bill after the due date mentioned in the aforesaid OMs, the same was not rightly processed for payment and hence the respondents cannot be faulted in any manner. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents reiterated that the OA being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

The core principle of administrative justice is that authorities must handle employee grievances with an open, fair, and objective mind, rather than issuing blanket, mechanical rejections. When an organization rejects the prayer of an employee relating to service matter without genuinely considering and examining the matter with reference to the Rules and law on the subject, it is construed to be failure on the part of the authority concerned to apply its mind and, such type of rejection is considered as arbitrary and colourable exercise of power by the court of law. Similarly, an employee cannot claim any benefits de hors the rules if not entitled to by application of any codified provision.

We find that the Nodal Ministry of the Government of India through OM No. 19030/1/2017-E-IV dated 13.03.2018 held that “consequent upon the issuance of General Financial Rule (GFR)-2017, vide Rule 290 of GFR-20’17, time-limit for submission of claim for Travelling Allowance (TA) has been changed from one year to sixty days succeeding the date of completion of the journey. Accordingly, in supersession of this Department’s O/I NO. F.5(16)-E.IV(8)/67 dated 13.06.1967 & OM No. 19038/1/75-E.IV (B) dated 18.02.1976, it has been decided with the approval of competent Authority that the claim of a Govt. servant to Travelling Allowance/ Daily Allowance on Tour/Transfer/Training/Journey on Retirement, is forfeited or deemed to have been relinquished if the claim for it is not preferred within sixty days succeeding the date of completion of the journey.” It was also stated that “a claim for Travelling Allowance of a Govt, servant which has been allowed to remain in abeyance for a period exceeding one year should be investigated by the Head of the Department concerned, If the Head of Department is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim on the basis of the supportive documents and there are valid reasons for the delay in preferring the claims, the claims should be paid by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer or Accounts Officer, as the case may be, after usual checks".

Respondents in their counter specifically stated that, in accordance with the approval, the applicant undertaken tour to Kolkata from 8th to 9th January, 2020 but, in order to substantiate that any such prior approval was granted in pen and paper, no evidence is filed by them since it is the specific case of the applicant that he undertook the tour on the aforesaid days on the oral approval conveyed by the Competent Authority and, therefore, on the communication subsequently made, the same was approved ex post facto on the letter dated 02.09.2020 and he submitted TA Bill on 30.09.2020. The above facts have not been disputed in the counter by the respondents nor in course of hearing by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. However, respondents' case is that instead of completing the tour, he went to Chennai on LTC, which is not in accordance with rules but, if it is so, that is the matter for the department to consider while settling his LTC claim. But, as per the rules, the benefit of the TA claim insofar as travelling, lodging and fooding will have to be restricted according to the his entitlement. We find that even though the applicant resubmitted his TA bill by explaining the above aspect, the same has not been taken into consideration by the respondents in the order of rejection. No whisper has also been made in regard to the above aspect in the counter. Even conceding for a moment, the TA bill submitted by the applicant was belated one, when the applicant explained the reasons giving documentary evidence for such delay and discretionary power is vested with the competent authority, such as the Head of Department or Head of Office, to condone upto one year of delay in submitting a belated Travelling Allowance (TA) claim if valid and unavoidable reasons are presented, it was obligatory on the part of the authority concerned to explain why he did not prefer to exercise such power, which is lacking in the order of rejection so also in the counter. It is needless to state that Administrative Authorities must handle employee grievances with active application of mind and an employee-favorable lean, rather than resorting to arbitrary or mechanical rejections since "mechanical rejection" without considering the specific facts of a case violates the principles of natural justice and fair play. A welfare state should act as a model employer, meaning rules should be interpreted reasonably to help employees rather than to trap them in technicalities.

In view of the discussions made above, we find that this is a fit case where judicial interference and intervention is necessary in directing the respondents to consider the processing the TA claim strictly in accordance with rules, which they shall do as early as possible preferably not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We are not inclined to grant any interest as prayed for by the applicant but we make it clear that failure to comply the order directed above within the time frame, the applicant shall be entitled to 8% interest on the claim to be payable to him, which shall be recoverable from the officers/officials responsible for such delay. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. Pending MA, if any, stands disposed of. No costs.