AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application under Sec 14 of the AFT Act 2007 has been filed by the applicant who is a serving officer and is aggrieved by the unreasonable and unjustified actions of the Respondents in not passing various financial claims of the applicant resulting in huge monetary loss.
The applicant has made the following prayers:
(a) Direct the respondents to place all the relevant policies, relevant financial regulations and relevant travel regulations and rules on record;
(b) Direct the respondents to pay amount of Rs.19,962/- in regard to journey performed from Delhi to Jammu by Private Airlines with permission of the competent authority;
(c) Direct the respondents to return the excess amount deducted on account of SCCIA paid to the applicant;
(d) Direct the respondents to pay the claim of the applicant on family shifted to Separated Family Accommodation at Udhampur when applicant was posted in CI area;
(e) Direct the respondents to pay the amount of Rs.7,840/-against the legitimate LTC claim of Air travel from Srinagar to Jammu and back;
(f) Direct the respondents to pay the left-over amount of posting claim Rs.1,13,045/- in regard to the expense incurred while proceeding on posting from Chowkibal, Kashmir (Old Duty Station) to Binnaguri, West Bengal (New Duty Station); and
(g) Direct the respondents to pay the actual Air fare of Rs.55,000/- incurred by the applicant and calculate the amount of CTG with regard to 7th CPC.
Brief Facts of the Case
The applicant is aggrieved on five issues, LTC claim of 2016 being partially disallowed; incorrect recovery of SCCI allowance; claim of move of household goods to SF accommodation rejected; LTC claim for Rs.7840/- rejected and permanent move claim partially rejected. The brief details of each of these issues, as per the applicant, are as under:
(a) LTC Claim 2016 Partially Disallowed. In 2016, the applicant was posted at Chowkibal in (J&K) and was allotted separated family accommodation at Udampur. The nearest airport to his duty station was Srinagar, while Jammu was the nearest airport to Udampur. The applicant was granted 19 days part of annual leave from 12.04.2016 to 30.04.2016 during which he first flew to Jammu and from there to Mumbai with his wife and infant child travelled to Mumbai on LTC along with his wife and child. In the absence of any direct flight from Srinagar to Mumbai, the applicant flew Srinagar - Jammu - Delhi - Mumbai. On the return leg, due to non-availability of flight ticket on Air India on 29.04.2016, he along with his wife and child travelled this leg by private airlines, Jet Airways from Delhi to Jammu. As per the applicant, permission of the competent authority had been obtained for travelling by an airline other than Air India. In addition, it's also the applicant's assertion that there was a blanket permission for officers travelling to and fro from J&K to travel by airlines other than Air India. The applicant had drawn an advance of Rs.46,272/- for this LTC and on completion of the journey, he preferred his LTC claim for Rs 64,174/-. CDA(O), the 2nd Respondent, however, passed the claim for only Rs.44,212/-, as it disallowed Rs.19,962/- on the grounds that journey by private airlines/ own car/ taxi/ private ship was not admissible, and also recovered Rs.2060/- as excess amount of the advance drawn.
(b) Recovery of Special Compensatory Counter Insurgency Allowance (SCCIA).Being posted in an active CI environment, the applicant was authorised SCCIA. On being posted out of CI area, the applicant ceased to draw SCCIA with effect from 22.12.2016. Since CDA(O) had already credited SCCIA in the month of Dec 2016 and Jan 2017, the excess amount paid was recovered. It's the applicant's case that while SCCIA had been paid at the rate of Rs.10,800/pm, CDA(O) made the recovery at the rate of Rs.13,590/- on the grounds that while the payment had been made with the old rates, recovery was made based on the new rates.
(c) Claim for Move of Household Goods to SF Accn Rejected. The applicant got married whilst in field area and was allotted separated family accommodation (SF Accn) at Udhampur. The applicant moved his household goods from Navi Mumbai, his home town to Udhampur and claimed the transportation allowance. However, this was disallowed for the reason that when officers posted in an operational/ field area get married, they are authorised transportation allowance for house hold goods for the first time only when they get posted back to a peace station.
(d) LTC Claim for Rs.7840/-Rejected. The applicant was granted casual leave from 26.07.2016 to 02.08.2016 and he travelled by Air India from Srinagar to Jammu and back at a cost of Rs.7,814/-. The applicant preferred a LTC claim for this amount which was rejected on the grounds that though the officer had been granted leave from 26.07.2016 to 30.07.2016, he performed the return leg of his LTC journey on 02.08.2016. Although the leave dates were corrected and a fresh Part II order published, CDA (O) refused to consider the claim.
(e) Permanent Move Claim 2017. The applicant was posted to Binaguri from J&K in Dec 2016. His total move claim of Rs. 2,07,620/- was passed only for Rs 94,575 and Rs 1,13,045 was disallowed.
Arguments by Counsel for the Applicant
The Counsel briefly explained the service profile of the officer; then recapitulated the prayers of the applicant and highlighted the fact that grave injustice had been done to him by the Respondents in not passing various claims preferred by him, all of them pertaining to the period when the applicant was posted in an operational area in J&K; thus causing major financial loss to the applicant. The Counsel then recounted the five issues at hand and elaborated on each of them.
Explaining the details pertaining to the LTC Claim 2016 being partially disallowed, the Counsel explained the circumstances and highlighted the fact that, despite formal permission having been subsequently accorded for travel by private airlines (annexure A-2/ page 30), the Respondents had still disallowed the expenditure incurred in the air travel from Delhi to Jammu. The Counsel explained the recovery of special compensatory counter insurgency allowance (SCCIA) and highlighted the fact that while the monthly allowance had been made as per the old rates, the recovery had been made as per the revised rates applicable under the 7th CPC. The Counsel emphasised that the Unit too had taken up the case for refund with PCDA (O), but was of no avail.
The Counsel then explained in detail the financial loss arising out of the rejection of the claim for move of household goods to SF accommodation at Udhampur. The Counsel reiterated that the applicant had been allotted separated family accommodation and that rent and allied charges too had been deducted for the entire duration of occupation. The Counsel further emphasised that over the years the Army had increased its officers married accommodation including separated family accommodation. Elaborating that the claim was disallowed for the reason that when officers posted in operational/ field area get married, they are authorised transportation allowance for house hold goods for the first time only when they get posted back to a peace station, he vehemently argued that in order to sustain the morale of our serving soldiers in such harsh operational areas, such archaic rules need to be repealed and they need to be enabled to move family wherever they are allotted such separated family accommodation.
The Counsel then explained the details pertaining to the LTC claim for Rs.7840/- preferred while the officer went on leave from Srinagar to Jammu where his family was in a separated family station. The Counsel added that the applicant whilst on leave had fallen sick and had to be hospitalised and accordingly his leave had been extended by his unit. Thus, though the officer had been initially granted leave from 26.07.2016 to 30.07.2016, he performed the return leg of his LTC journey on 02.08.2016. Moreover, the original Part II Order dated 02.08.2016 had been cancelled and fresh Part II Order dated 11.01.2017 had been published regularising the additional leave granted. Despite all these, the PCDA (O) declined to accept the reasons forwarded and rejected the claim on the premise that while the applicant had been granted casual leave from 26.07.2016 to 02.08.2016, he had performed the return leg of his LTC journey on 02.08.2016.
The Counsel then explained the grave financial distress caused by the PCDA (O) which partially allowed the officer's permanent move claim on being posted from J&K to Binaguri in Dec 2016. His total move claim of Rs.2,07,620/- was passed only for Rs.94,575/- and Rs.1,13,045/- on the plea that he was entitled to claim permanent move allowances only as per the prevailing rates whilst the applicant had preferred the claim as per the 7the CPC pay scale which was already in vogue since 01.01.2016. The Counsel asserted that if indeed the TA claims were to be regulated as per the old rates of allowance, it was imperative for the second respondent to have intimated this when the applicant sought advance for the permanent move, and that this clarification came about only in Jun 2017 when the applicant had already incurred the expenditure and had sought clarifications. The Counsel also stated that though the air fare had been disallowed pending certain clarifications, the applicant had intimated him that the airfare had been paid.
The Counsel concluded by vehemently stating that the PCDA(O) needs to review all the claims, and ensure that they are settled and pending amount is credited at the earliest taking into consideration any other portion that may have been paid in the intervening period.
Arguments by Counsel for the Respondents
The Counsel for the Respondents said that all claims have been allowed/ disallowed as per the rules and rates in vogue and then went on to explain each of the five issues in detail.
LTC Claim 2016 Partially Disallowed. The Counsel for the Respondents stated that as per rules, prior permission was required to be obtained to travel by private airlines, whereas in the case at hand, the applicant had sought permission 4 months after the date of travel. Referring to the HQ Northern Command IFA letter dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure R-I) permission has not been accorded for relaxation to travel by airlines other than Air India, since there are no exceptional circumstances in this case and that the NAS certificate was not legible and the fact that NAS was not a valid ground for travelling by private airlines on LTC. The Counsel further stated that the DoPT letter dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure R-2) only conveyed the sanction to avail LTC to visit places in NER/A&N/J&K against the conversion of one block of 'home town' LTC and that this letter has also categorically stated that LTC Air travel was to be performed by Air India in Economy Class only, and at LTC-80 fare or less. The Counsel emphasised that the applicant had certainly misinterpreted this letter and that if the applicant was relying on this letter, then there was no requirement of seeking any further permission, which the applicant had obtained from IFA, HQ Northern Command vide the letter at Annexure A-2. Therefore, the contention of the applicant to travel by private airlines based on the permission granted by IFA, HQ Northern Command vide letter dated 26.08.2016 (Annexure A-2) may not hold good. Accordingly, since the applicant travelled by private airlines and not by Air India, in contravention to the existing rules an amount of Rs19,962/- was disallowed by Respondent No 2 vide this office DAK id RTB0322016-11469 dated 06.10.2016(Annexure R-3).
Recovery of Special Compensatory Counter Insurgency Allowance (SCCIA). The Counsel initially explained the concurrent admissibility of both SCCIA and HAUCA to the applicant for the period of his stay in that location and added that consequent to the posting out of the applicant, he ceased to draw these allowances with effect from 22.12.2016. Referring to the prayer of the applicant that SCCIA had been paid at old rates and the excess amount for the period 22.12.2016 to 31.01.2017 was recovered at new rates, the Counsel stated that that this was not correct. He then elaborated that the recovery made of Rs.13,590/-included recovery of excess amounts paid for both the allowances; SCCIA and HAUCA. He further elaborated that the monthly allowance of SCCIA was Rs.10,800/- and that of HAUCA was Rs.2,790/-. Referring to the pay slips of the applicant for the months of Dec 2016, Jan and Feb 2017 (Annexure R-4), the Counsel then stated that both these were the old rates. The Counsel then stated that in addition to the recovery consequent to being posted out, Rs.720/- had also been recovered on account of HAUCA for the period from 14.12.2016 to 21.12.2016. The Counsel then explained the details of the actual recovery as given below which were madein the pay slip of Feb 2017.
Name
Period
Rate at
which
Recovered
of
of
allowance
was
Amount
Allowance
Adjustment
paid/ recovered
(Rs.)
SCCIA
22.12.2016 to 31.01.2017
@ Rs.10,800/-
14,284.00
HAUCA
22.12.2016 to 31.01.2017
@ Rs.2790/-
3,690.00
HAUCA
14.12.2016 to 21.12.2016
@ Rs.2790/-
720.00
Total
18,694.00
Claim for Move of Household Goods to SFAccn Rejected. Referring to the prayer of the applicant that claim for move of household goods to separated family accommodation had been rejected, the Counsel stated that the applicant had submitted his permanent duty claim for newly married wife joining the officer in the concessional area for Rs.54,515/-had been submitted vide 19 MARATHA LI letter No 75797 dated 23.08.2014 and that the claim was allotted Dak ID NoRTB032014-11830. The Counsel then stated that the claim had been passed with a debt of Rs.47,814/- after adjusting the advance of Rs.46,500/- taken by the applicant. The Counsel then elaborated that Rs.47,814/- was disallowed in terms of Rule TR 72-A(a) (Annexure R-6).
LTC Claim for Rs.7840 Rejected. Referring to the plea of the applicant that his LTC claim for Rs.7,840/- whilst he proceeded on casual leave from duty station to Jammu had been rejected, the Counsel for the Respondents stated that Respondent No. 2 had raised certain observations and returned the claim to the applicant. However, since then, though certain clarifications had been submitted by the applicant, the claim was yet to be fully re-submitted. Further elaborating on the observation, the Counsel said that as per Unit Part II order No 0082 dated 02.08.2016, the applicant was on casual leave from 26.07.2016 to 30.07.2016; rejoined from casual leave on 31.07.2016 and was taken on ration strength (TORS) on 31.07.2016. However, as per the claim details he had commenced his journey on 25.07.2016 at 1520 hours and returned on 02.08.2016. This gave rise to the observation of whether the officer had indeed completed his LTC journey in one single continuous spell or not. The applicant's contention that no action had been taken by Respondent No. 2 once the Part II order dated 03.08.2016 was cancelled and a fresh Part II Order dated 11.01.2017 was published was incorrect, as the office had promptly dealt with the initial claim and returned it to the unit with the observations (Annexure R-7). Since then, the returned claim had not re-submitted by the applicant indicating the compliance of the audit objection; along with supporting documents to enable Respondent No. 2 re-process the claim.
Permanent Move Claim 2017. The Counsel vehemently denied the applicant's contention that the Respondents' action in not allowing the complete claim was unlawful, and that it was an unwarranted assertion. He further stated that the permanent move claim had been dealt with as per the rules and regulations in vogue at the time when the claim was submitted. Elaborating on the amount claimed and that passed, the Counsel said that the applicant had preferred the claim for his permanent move from Udhampur, his selected place of residence (SPR) to Binnaguri, and that the initial claim document IAFF-1715 received by Respondent 2 had contained only page 1 and 3; and page 2 was missing. He further elaborated that page 1 contained details of amount claimed on account of CTG - Rs.34,770/-; conveyance of baggage and household goods Rs.88,951/-; and that page 3 reflected the details of total amount claimed- Rs.2,07,620/-; advance drawn - Rs. 1,76,548/- and the balance of Rs.31,072/- due to the applicant. Hence, claim has been admitted only for CTG and baggage and the applicant was advised vide office memo No T/3/217883P dated 11.05.2017 to prefer a supplementary claim for transportation of car and air fare. The Counsel further stated that the applicant submitted a supplementary claim for Rs.1,69,575/- and that this was admitted only for Rs.8,871/- vide DAK ID RTB032017-11463 dated 31.08.2017. The details of admittance/ disallowances were intimated to the applicant vide No T/3/217883 dated 31.08.2017 (Annexure- R9). CTG was restricted to Rs.34,770/- as per 6th CPC pay scale entitlement of the applicant. As regards adjustment of airfare for Rs.57,896/-, since the applicant travelled Jammu - Mumai - Bagdogra and not by the shortest route, the applicant was to prefer a bifurcated claim of the amount, as intimated to the applicant by Respondent No. 2 vide RTB032017-11463 dated 31.08.2017; and the bifurcated claim is still awaited. The Counsel then explained the details of the claim preferred and amounts admitted; and these are reproduced below.
(a) Settlement of Initial Claim.
S.
Details
Amt. as per last
Amt.claimed
Amount
No.
of
pageof
by the
admitted
Exp
Cont.bill
applicant
by this office
(Rs.)
(Rs)
(i)
CTG
Rs.34,770/-
Rs.34,770/-
Rs.34,770/-
(ii)
Conveyance
of
Rs.88951/-
Rs.88,951/-
Rs.59,805/- (for
baggage
and
a distance 2215
household goods.
km
*Rate
Rs.27/-)
(iii)
Not
mentioned
Rs.83,899/-
Nil
Nil
with the claim
TOTAL
Rs.2,07,620/-
Rs.1,23,721/-
Rs.94,575/-
(b) Settlement of Supplementary Claim.
S
Amt
Amount
Reason
No
claimed by
Remarks
the officer
admitted
for disallowances
(Rs.)
CTG claimed by the officer
Photocopy of RTB
based on 7th CCPC the
032017-3182 dated
(i)
56,530.00
0
basic pay
24.03.2017 attached
(Annexure K refers)
Baggage claim already
Photocopy of RTB
admitted for Rs.59,805/- @
032017-3182 dated
(ii)
29,146.00
0
27/- per km for 2,215 km.
24.03.2017 attached
(Annexure K refers)
Airfare claimed from Jammu
Photocopy of RTB
to Mumbai and Mumbai to
032017-11463 dated
Bagdogra. Airfare
31.08.2017 attached
(iii)
57,896.00
0
admissible for shortest
(Annexure J refers)
route from old duty station
to new duty station.
Therefore, bifurcated airfare
from airlines required to
admit the claim. Therefore, bifurcated airfare from airlines required to admit the claim.
Consideration of the Case
Having heard both parties at length, each of the issue agitated before this Tribunal are mutually exclusive and, therefore, will have to be considered separately.
LTC Claim 2016 Partially Disallowed
There is no dispute that the journey including one leg by private airlines had been performed as stated by the applicant and the LTC claim had been made for the complete amount and the fact that Respondent 2 had disallowed Rs.19,962/- on the grounds that the flight on the Delhi-Jammu leg had been undertaken on a private airline. The issue is whether the applicant had requisite permission to travel by private airlines. While the rule position has been reiterated by the Respondents, it is pertinent to note that IFA, HQ Northern Command, in spite of being in the knowledge of these rules and having initially declined permission vide their letter dated 24.08.2016 (Annexure R-I), thought it fit to finally grant permission vide their letter dated 26.09.2016 (Annexure A-2). Moreover, the letter indicates that this was the 171st case on 'TRAVEL BY AIR' being examined by the IFA's Office. Thus, it would be safe to assume that the IFA's office had considered all aspects of the case and then thought it fit to grant sanction as a special case. Therefore, Respondent No.2 should have honoured and upheld the one-time sanction granted by the IFA, and allowed the entire travel expenditure, rather than make the applicant, a young officer posted in active CI operational area run from pillar to post to realise his dues. The letter of IFA, HQ Northern Command is reproduced below:
OFFICE OF THE INTEGRATED FINANCIAL ADVISER
HQ NORTHERN COMMAND C/O 56 APO
PIN - 908545
No IFA/NC/39/TRAVEL BY AIR Cases/171 Dated 26 Oct 2016
To
Officer In Charge
19 Maratha Li
Pin 911619, C/O 56 APO
Sub:- Relaxation for travel by Airlines other than Air India
Ref:- 19 Maratha Li letter no 75797/SB/Pers dated 31.08.2016
Competent authority has granted permission for travel by other than Air India/ Airlines from Delhi to jammu on 29 April 2016 on LTC in r/o IC-75797L Maj Sainesh Bhardwaj, Company Commander, 19 Maratha LI.
The Officer may be informed accordingly.
Sd xxxxx
(Jatinder Gowswami)
Sr Dy IFA
Recovery of Special Compensatory Counter Insurgency Allowance (SCCIA)
There is no dispute that the applicant was entitled to both SCCIA and HAUCA whilst being posted in with his Unit in Chowkibal and that he was being paid these allowances at the monthly rate of Rs.10800/- and Rs.2070/- respectively as indicated in his monthly payslips. It is also confirmed from the records that the 7th CPC SCCIA rate is Rs.16,900/-month and that of HAUCA is Rs 3400/month. Since the applicant left the field concessional area on 21.12.2016 and that fact that he had been paid these allowances in full for the month of Dec 2016 and Jan 2017, the excess amount had to be recovered. The Respondents have intimated the details of the breakdown of the actual amount recovered and it is seen that the recovery has been affected at the same rate at which they were paid and not at an enhanced rate as perceived by the applicant. We therefore uphold the recovery made by the Respondents which are as under:
Name
Period
Rate at which
Recovered
of
of
allowance was
amount
Allowance
Adjustment
paid/ recovered
(Rs)
SCCIA
22.12.2016 to 31.01.2017
@ Rs.10,800.00
14,284.00
HAUCA
22.12.2016 to 31.01.2017
@ Rs.2790.00
3,690.00
HAUCA
14.12.2016 to 21.12.2016
@ Rs.2790.00
720.00
Total
18,694.00
Claim for Move of Household Goods to SF Accn Rejected
The only reason cited by the Respondents for not admitting the transportation claim for the cost incurred by the applicant in moving his newlywed wife and household goods from his hometown to Udhampur, where he was allotted SF accommodation, is that the applicant is not entitled to claim this as per the provisions of TR-72A. TR-72A is reproduced below:
72-A Conveyance for Families of Service Officers/ Civilians who marry while serving in Concessional Area
(a) in the case of a service officer who marries while serving in an operational or field service area where families are not permitted to reside, conveyance is admissible under Rule 85 to his newly married wife on his posting back to peace station limited to the cost of conveyance from the rail head nearest to the old duty station of the officer in operational or field service concessional area to the new peace duty station to which he is posted.
(b) A serving officer who married while serving in concessional area may be allowed free conveyance of family scale of baggage from the place of residence of the newly married wife to the new peace duty station of the officer on his return from the concessional area.
The fact that the applicant was posted in an operational field concessional CI area and that he was allotted separated married accommodation at Udhampur is undisputed. It is seen from the records that the officer had been allotted SF married accommodation at P-15/5, Ashok Vihar vide Stn HQ Udhampur letter No.74/3/Sl:/Offrs/O (Stn Cell)/Directive dated 16 Apr 2014. The officer took over the accommodation in Apr 2014 and his wife moved in Jun 2014. It is also seen that CDA (O) has been deducting rent and allied charges regularly from the monthly pay and allowances. It is seen from the applicant's pay slip for the month of Dec 2016, submitted by the Respondents at Annexure R- 4/ page 69, that License Fee of Rs 628 and Furniture charge of Rs 267 has been deducted for the period 01.12.2014 to 31.12.2014. Thus, it is beyond any doubt that the officer was allotted SF married accommodation, and that he has paid rent and allied charges for the period of occupation from Apr 2014 to 26.12.2014 when he vacated the accommodation.
Special Army Order SAO 10/S/86 lays down the policy on married accommodation and PART V deals with 'Provision Of Separated Family accommodation'. The entitlement is given in Para 110 reproduced below:
Option Available. - Officers posted to field service areas have the following options :-
(a) Send their families at Government expense to a selected place of residence; or
(b) Select any one of the separated family station listed Appendix 'E' for hiring of accommodation for separated families or to stations where accommodation has been specifically constructed for them and to move the family to that station at Government expense; or
(c) To retain family accommodation at the last duty station with the permission of the Station Commander or the allotting authority.
Since the SAO does not state anywhere that provisions of Para 110 is not applicable to a newly married officer, it must be assumed that a newly married officer, even if he got married whilst serving in a field area, is also entitled to SF accommodation and is entitled to make a choice as given in Para 110. Accordingly, the applicant who whilst being posted in a field area got married and chose to apply for married accommodation at Udhampur; and it was rightly allotted to him. Being entitled to SF accommodation and having been allotted such accommodation, the TR72A quoted by the Respondents to deny the applicant the transportation allowance of his wife to the said SF accommodation is seen as ultra vires. It is also seen from the records that over the years, the Army has increased the total quantity of SF accommodation for all ranks, spread over various stations to cater for the aspirations of the serving soldiers and improve their quality of life. This Tribunal is therefore, of the opinion that the Respondents need to review the Travel Regulations and modify TR-72 to meet the needs of serving soldiers. In view of the foregoing, this Tribunal admits the plea of the applicant to be paid the complete transportation cost as claimed, in moving his wife and household goods to SF accommodation at Udhampur in 2014.
LTC Claim for Rs 7840 Rejected
It has been stated by the Counsel for the Respondents that Respondent 2 had raised certain observations and returned the claim to the applicant. However, since then, though certain clarifications had been submitted by the applicant, the claim was yet to be fully resubmitted. It has been clearly established that the issue of the travel date of the LTC had been resolved with the publication of a fresh Part II Order dated 11.01.2017 where in the period of leave actually availed has been amended and corrected. Moreover, the claims had been submitted afresh by the applicant on 12.01.2017 with the fresh Part II Order dated 11.01.2017 correcting the leave details. The applicant had also informed CDA(O) vide Dak ID 626331 dated 10.03.2017 that the returned claim papers had not yet been received by the applicant's Unit and that since the fresh Part II Order had been issued, the claim be settled. Under these circumstances, since the details are already available with PCDA (O), the Respondents should process the claim without further awaiting any documents from the applicant and credit the amount.
Permanent Move Claim 2017.
The Army Officers Pay Rules, 2017 which was deemed to have come into force from 01.01.2016 was issued vide S.R.O. 12(E) dated 03.05.2017, promulgated vide Extraordinary Gazette Notification No 9 dated 05.05.2017. However, modification of the provisions relating to travelling allowance entitlements of armed forces personnel consequent to the acceptance of the recommendations of the 7th CPC was issued vide MoD letter No 12630/Mov C/242/D (Mov)/ 2017 dated 15.09.2017 implementation of allowances recommended by the 7th CPC. Para 5 of the said letter is extracted below:
xx xx xx xx xx xx
xx xx xx xx xx xx
The claims submitted in respect of journey made on or after 1st July 2017 may be regulated in accordance with these orders. In respect ofjourneys performed prior to 1st July 2017, the claims may be regulated in accordance with the previous orders dated 29 Dec 2008.
xx xx xx xx xx xx
These orders shall take effect from 01st July 2017.
The paragraph relevant to TA on transfer as given in the Annexure to MoD letter dated 15.09.2017 is extracted below:
T.A. on Transfer. (Rule 57, 58, 60, 61, 62,67,69 and 70 of Travel Regulations, 2014 Edn)
TA on Transfer includes 4 components:-
(i) Travel entitlement for self and family.
(ii) Composite Transfer and packing grant (CTG).
(iii) Reimbursement of charges on transportation of personal effects.
(iv) Reimbursement of charges on transportation of conveyance.
(i) Travel Entitlements;
(a) Travel entitlements as prescribed for tour in Para 2 above, except for International Travel, will be applicable in case of journeys on transfer. The general conditions of admissibility as laid down in Travel Regulations, 2014 Ed) will, however, continue to be applicable.
(b) The provisions relating to small family norms as contained in Para 2
(A) of Annexure to Ministry of Defence letter No.12630/Q Mov C/3198/D Mov/98 dated 28 Oct 1998 shall continue to be applicable.
(ii) Composite Transfer and Packing Grant (CTG):
(a) The Composite Transfer Grant shall be paid at the rate 80% of the last month's basic pay in case of transfer involving a change of station located at a distance of or more than 20 kms from each other. However, for transfer to and from the Island territories of Andaman, Nicobar & Lakshadweep, CTG shall be paid at the rate of 100% of last month's basic pay. Further, NPA and MSP shall not be included as part of basic pay while determining entitlement for CTG.
(b) In cases of transfer to stations which are at a distance of less than 20 kms from the old station and of transfer within the same city, one third of the Composite Transfer Grant will be admissible, provided a change of residence is actually involved.
(c) In cases, where the transfer of husband and wife takes place within six months, but after 60 days of the transfer of the spouse, fifty percent of the Transfer Grant on transfer shall be allowed to the spouse transferred later. No Transfer Grant shall be admissible to the spouse transferred later, in case both the transfers are ordered within 60 days. The existing provisions shall continue to be applicable in case of transfers after a period of six months or more. Other rules precluding Transfer Grant in case of transfer at own request or transfer other than in public Interest, shall continue to apply unchanged in their case.
(iii) Transportation of Personal Effects
Level
By Train/Steamer
By Road
12 and above
6000
Kg by goods train/4
Rs.50/- per km
wheeler wagon/ 1 double
container
5A to 11
6000
Kg by goods train/4
Rs.50/- per km
wheeler wagon/1 single
container
5
3000 Kg
Rs.25/- per km
4 and below
1500
Ka
Rs.15/- per km
(a) The rates will further rise by 25 percent whenever DA increases by 50 percent. The rates for transporting the entitled weight by Steamer will be equal to the prevailing rates prescribed by such transport in ships operated by Shipping Corporation of India. The claim for reimbursement shall be admissible subject to the production of actual receipts/ vouchers by the service pers. Production of receipts/ vouchers is mandatory in respect of transfer cases of North Eastern Region, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep also.
(b) Transportation of personal effects by road is as per kilometre basis only. The classification of cities / towns for the purpose of transportation of personal effects is done away with.
(iv) Transportation of Conveyance -(Rule 67 & 70 of Travel Regulations, 2014 Edn).
Level
Reimbursement
5A and above
1 motor car etc. Or 1 motor cycle/
scooter
5 and below
1 motor cycle/ scooter/ moped/ bicycle
The general conditions of admissibility of TA on transfer as laid down in Travel Regulations (2014 En) will, however, continue to be applicable.
While the pay scales of 7th CPC was effective from 01.01.2016, the revised rules for allowances were made effective only from 01.07.2017, on the authority of the letter dated 15.09.2017. Thus, the environment is therefore likely to have been unaware/ in doubt on the admissibility of the revised allowances from a later date. As seen from the records, the applicant was posted out from his unit in Dec 2016 and the claim preferred in 2017 on completion of the permanent transfer move. In anticipation of the impending move, the applicant had taken an advance of Rs.1,76,548/- vide online Requisition for Advance dated 05.12.2016 which was admitted and the advance was paid to the applicant. However, Respondent No. 2 did not clarify/ elaborate that the advance had been paid as per 6th CPC rates in vogue and that pending official implementation of 7th CPC allowances, officers were entitled to allowances as per old rates only. The applicant commenced move from Udhampur (SPR) on 26.12.2016 and arrived at his new duty station Binaguri on 08.01.2017. The claim for the move was forwarded by the applicant vide his Unit letter dated 15 Feb 2017 along with all the connected documents (Annexure A-6 pages 40 to 43).
As seen from Annexure R-8 of the counter affidavit, the PCDA(O) vide their memo dated 11.05.2017 while replying to the applicant on his query dated 30.04.2017 explaining the observations on the LTC and permanent move claim did not clarify the position that TA was admissible as per 6th CPC rates in vogue. The applicant thus preferred a supplementary claim vide Voucher dated 26.05.2017 (Annexure A-7 page 47). The clarification that allowances as per 7th CPC were yet not admissible and that the advance paid had been paid as per allowances admissible under 6th CPC was intimated by CDA(O) to the applicant only on 12.06.2017 vide Dak ID 635846 in reply to the query of the applicant dated 30.05.2017 (Annexure A-7).
Considering the fact that orders for implementation of 7th CPC allowances were only promulgated in Sep 2017 and was effective from 01.07.2017, there was reasonable doubt and ambiguity on the date from which 7th CPC rate of allowances were admissible. It was fair for the applicant to assume that since the pay scales had been implemented from 01.01.2016 and the fact that CTG was based on 80% of the last basic pay, that he would be entitled to CTG as per his revised pay. In the absence of any clarification or instructions from the Respondent 2 during the process of claiming advance, the applicant remained rooted in the belief of the applicability of rates as per 7th CPC. Considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant was deployed in an operational field area and the fact that routine instructions may not have reached the applicant, it was incumbent on PCDA(O) to formally intimate the applicant on the applicability of rates as per 6th CPC as soon as he had sought the advance for his move. In view of these specific circumstances, the Tribunal holds that the applicant is entitled to his TA claim as per 7th CPC scale of allowances.
Having heard both the parties at length, examined the supporting documents submitted by both sides and considering the difficult circumstances of the applicant who was posted in an operational area in J&K and the measures taken by him, we are of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of the following expenditures:
(a) Rs.19,962/- incurred whilst travelling by private airlines from Delhi to Jammu during LTC of 2016
(b) Rs.54,515/- incurred in moving his household goods from Navi Mumbai to Udhampur where he was allotted separated family accommodation.
(c) Rs.7,814/- incurred by the applicant in Jul/ Aug 2016 whilst travelling from Srinagar to Jammu and back whilst on casual leave.
(d) All expenditure incurred during the permanent move to Binaguri as per 7th CPC Travelling allowances.
In view of the above, we allow the O.A directing the respondents to:
(a) Admit the above claims based on the claim documents/details already available with Respondent No 2 and reimburse the expenditure in full, taking into account any payment that may have already been made in relation to these claims. A compliance report be submitted to this Tribunal within three months.
(b) Review Rule 72-A of Travel Regulations to facilitate an officer who marries whilst serving in an operational/ field area to move his family to a selected place of residence/ separated family accommodation and claim the cost of such move. A report be submitted to this Tribunal within six months.
No orders to costs.
Pronounced in open Court today the 10th day of November, 2021.