AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s):
“I. quash and set aside the impugned action of the respondents, vide which the applicant has been subjected to recovery of Rs.7352/- per month from the salary (July 2019 onwards) for the refund of the entire LTC amount of Rs.73,528/-paid to the applicant in the year 2014 and direct the respondent to refund the amount already recovered by the respondents along with interest @18% per annum from the date of recovery till the date of payment.
II. cost of the proceedings may also be awarded to applicant.
III. Any other relief which this Tribunal may also be passed in favour of the applicant.”
2. Brief Facts:
The applicant is working as ASI with the respondents.
He had applied for LTC for the block year 2013-14 to travel Sri Nagar by Air along with his family members.
In 2014 LTC advance has been sanctioned to him as per the existing rules.
He performed the journey and submitted the tickets to the department to claim the reimbursement. The department reimbursed an amount of Rs.73,528/- towards the LTC claim in the year 2014 itself.
After about 5 years in August 2019, the respondents without issuing any show cause notice/Memo, started recovery from the applicant on account of LTC amount. It is submitted that it was verbally told to him that the recovery is being done due to purchase of tickets from the unauthorized agent. At the time of filing of the OA, four instalments of Rs.7352/- each have been effected upon the applicant in pursuance to the impugned action.
Applicant made a representation against the impugned action but to no avail. Hence this OA.
Per contra, respondents in their counter reply contended that since the Ministry of Finance sets the guidelines/norms/rules and regulations for allowances entitled to government servants and issued OMs in this regard from time to time but the applicant has not made Ministry of Finance, GOI a party to the said OA which is also a necessary party. It is contended that a communication was received from Police Headquarters with directions to furnish details of number of LTC cases claimed during the period 2010-2013 and 2014-17 to visit Jammu & Kashmir, North East Region and Andaman & Nicobar Islands and also directed the concerned Deputy Commissioners of Police to verify the genuineness of such claims as aforesaid and were asked to submit their reports within 30 days. In pursuance of the above directions, action was taken and consequent recoveries were made against irregular LTC claims vide memo dated 14.01.2019. On scrutiny of applicant‟s claim and on enquiries from Indigo Airlines, it was found that the air tickets and records confirmed the journey of the applicant and his family members by paying a sum of Rs.32,372/- only of both sides although he has claimed an amount of Rs. 73,528/-. Accordingly, his case was reopened and excess amount of Rs.41,156/- was sought to be recovered as per rules. The respondents, therefore, submitted that the recovery effected is fully justified and the OA is liable to be dismissed.
Heard Sh. Yogesh Kumar Mahur, learned counsel for applicant and Sh. Amit Yadav, learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.
5. Analysis:
It is seen that the applicant has taken advance amounting to Rs.66,175/- vide bill No.8574 dated 11.03.2014 which was encashed on 15.03.2014 for performing journey from Delhi to Sri Nagar with his family members and rest of the amount of Rs.7353/- was reimbursed to him against bill No.2076 dated 30.06.2014 which was encashed on 09.07.2014 against the self attestation of the applicant on the claims. It is also submitted that the amount so taken in advance and the balance claim so made and reimbursed both are subject to verification at various levels of government machinery. The action on applicant for recovery has been initiated against the foul play done by him by submission of wrong unauthorized bill amount revealed on verification of the bills and claims.
It is also borne out from the record that the applicant performed his journey along with his family members by paying a sum of Rs.32,372/-only (of both side i.e. Rs.16740 + Rs.15988) whereas the applicant had claimed Rs.73,528/-.
It is reflected from the record that vide communication No.1298/Acctt./PCR(LTC) dated 18.02.2019, ACP on behalf of Dy. Commissioner of Police, PCR, Delhi issued a letter to GM, Indigo Airlines regarding verification of air tickets. A copy of details in excel sheet of 184 employees tickets is enclosed with it where applicant‟s name is at Sl.No.22. The amount reflected in the aforesaid list is Rs.55,146/- whereas in the counter affidavit it is stated that a sum of Rs.32,372/- has been paid as against the claim of Rs.73,528/-. It is not disputed that in various decisions of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.2072/2019 titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Sahkuntala Devi and WP (C) No.3106/2019 titled Joginder and ors vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi along with batch cases, it has been held that “the respondents would be entitled to recover the „difference‟ of the airfare as per the price offered/charged by authorized agents and the airfare paid to the petitioners”.
In the present case, a representation dated 14.12.2019 (Annexure-A) is to be adjudicated more particularly in the light of the fact that there appears to be some discrepancy in the actual amount of air fare whether it is Rs.32,372/- or Rs.55,146/-.
6. Conclusion:
Ends of justice would be met, if the Competent Authority, after due verification from the Indigo airlines regarding the actual fare on that particular date and also in respect of Ministry of Finance OM No.19024/1/2009-I-IV dated 16.09.2010, may pass an appropriate order regarding the exact amount to be recovered within 45 days from date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In the event, there is a difference between the recovery already made, the applicant shall be entitled to refund the difference amount, within a period of one month thereafter, failing which he shall be entitled to interest at GPF rate.
There shall be no order as to costs.