AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The issue in all these OAs is same. Hence these were clubbed and a common judgment is being delivered. For ease of understanding the salient details of OA-3377/2018 in Ajit Singh v. Delhi Police, have been summarised in following paragraphs.
The applicant in OA No.3377/2018 is presently working as Constable in Delhi Police. He had taken certain advances to avail LTC in November, 2013 to travel on the sector Delhi-Srinagar-Delhi. On return from said LTC, the bills were submitted and certain balance amount was also paid by the respondents. With this, the LTC claim was settled at Rs.57,853/-.
After above five years, the respondents issued a notice on 08.06.2018 to the applicant, to the effect that the entire LTC amount is to be recovered. The applicant was advised to pay the entire amount in a lump sum else it will be recovered in five to six instalments from his salary. One instalment of Rs.8265/- was recovered also from the salary of September, 2018. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed the instant OA.
In the hearing on 10.09.2018 the operation of letter dated 08.06.2018 was stayed and respondents were directed not to effect any further recovery
The applicant pleads that he learnt only later to availing LTC that in accordance with the rules in force issued by Ministry of Finance OM dated 16.09.2010 certain directions have been issued for purchasing LTC tickets. The same are reproduced below:
"2. LTC :
(i) Travel by Air India only.
(ii) In Economy class only, irrespective of entitlement.
(ii) LTC-80 ticket of Air India only to be purchased.
(iv) Air Tickets may be purchased directly from Airlines (at Booking counters / Website of Airlines) or by utilizing the services of Authorized Travel Agents viz. M/s Balmer Lawrie & Company, M/s Ashok Travels & Tours and IRCTC (to the extent IRCTC is authorized as per DoP&T OM No. 31011/6/2002-Estt.(A) dt. 02.12.09).
LTC for J&K :
(i) Relaxation to travel by Private Airlines to visit J&K while availing LTC is available to all the categories of Govt. employees, including those entitled to travel by Air [DoPT OMs No. 31011/2/2003-Esst.(A-IV) dated 18.06.10 and 05.08.10 refer].
(ii) For purchase of Air tickets, however, the procedure as given under para 2 (iv) above should be followed."
5.1 These directions were reiterated vide another OM dated 28.11.2014. However, these were not in the knowledge of the applicant and as such he had purchased the tickets from an agent who is not listed in the OM dated 16.09.2010 (para-5 supra). Subsequent to settling of the LTC claims, the audit had taken objection and it was in follow up of this audit recommendation that letter dated 08.06.2018 was issued to effect recovery. The said letter contains 14 names and the applicant's name appears at serial no.12 thereof. It is seen that reason of recovery is indicated to be that the ticket was purchased from a private agent, viz. Akbar Travels.
5.2 The applicant pleads that while effecting the recoveries he was not issued any Show Cause Notice and as such he was unable to present his views to the respondents.
5.3 The applicant also relied upon a judgment by the Tribunal dated 28.05.2018 in OA No.3835/2017 (Surender Kumar (Head Constable) v. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police & Ors.). It was pleaded that in similar circumstances the LTC claim was allowed and recoveries were stopped.
5.4 The applicant also relied upon a decision by the Tribunal in OA No.678/2015 (Miss Sunita Rathi & Ors. v. Union of India, through Miistry of Labour), the judgment was delivered on 01.03.2017. In this case the applicants were employees of ESIC. They had purchased an integrated package from an agent. This package included the cost of air tickets as well as boarding and lodging. Some other employees had also travelled on the same flight but they purchased tickets for air journey only. The respondents allowed the LTC claim in respect of those where tickets were purchased for air journey alone but had disallowed the integrated ticket fully. The applicants had felt aggrieved and agitated the matter in Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the OA. The respondents challenged the same in Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4933/2017. This was decided on 27.09.2017 and Hon'ble High Court took the view that discrimination between the two sets of employees cannot be done and, therefore, the applicants who purchased an integrated ticket were allowed LTC claim to the extent of expenditure of air journey alone. However, the Hon'ble High Court had noted that the decision shall not be quoted as a precedent.
5.5 The applicant also pleaded that there has been no misrepresentation on his part. The applicant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer), Civil Appeal No.11527/2014, wherein recoveries in certain circumstances, particularly of an older period and in case of employees of Group 'C' and 'D' have been prohibited.
5.6 The applicants have filed MA No.2906/2018 in OA No.2606/2018 and MA No.4289/2018 in OA No.3830/2018 for joining together, which are allowed in the interest of justice.
The respondents opposed the OAs. It was pleaded that the instructions in respect of how to purchase a ticket are specified in the Ministry of Finance OM dated 16.09.2010 which have been reiterated also on 28.11.2014 (para-5 supra).
6.1 It was pleaded that as per these OMs, the employees are given a choice to purchase tickets either from the airline or from certain specified authorized agents. Therefore, the employees are required to necessarily purchase tickets from these sources only and not from any other agent even though they may also be authorized by the airlines otherwise.
6.2 It was pleaded that the LTC tickets were wrongly reimbursed earlier and when this was detected in the audit inspection, it was found that in all, there were about 200 such cases where an excess expenditure, amounting to about Rs. Sixty lakhs had taken place and it was in follow up of this audit inspection that recoveries were ordered and a copy of said order was got received by all concerned employees.
6.3 It was pleaded that even though the recovery notice was issued on 08.06.2018 no recoveries were ordered immediately and the first recovery took place in September, 2018 only. In the meanwhile, the applicants could have preferred a representation, however, no such representation was actually preferred and the applicant approached the Tribunal directly. Accordingly, the OA is not maintainable as the applicant had not exhausted the departmental remedies available to him.
6.4 The respondents also pleaded that in similar circumstances the matter was agitated in two other OAs also, viz:
a) OA No.2411/2018 (Mool Chandra (HC) v. Govt. of NCTD through Commissioner of Police). The circumstances of that case are also exactly similar and vide orders dated 28.11.2018 the OA was dismissed.
b) OA No.2410/2018 (Joginder & Ors. v. Govt. of NCTD through Commissioner of Police). This OA was also dismissed vide orders dated 28.11.2018.
6.5 The respondents brought out that in another similar case, the matter was adjudicated and allowed by the Tribunal in OA No.3835/2017 on 28.05.2018 (para 5.3 supra). The same has been relied upon by the applicant. It was, however, brought out that when this case had come up before the Tribunal, the verification process of all such LTC claims, which were about 450 in number, was in progress and full details were not available. Accordingly, the entire ramification of expenditure could not be brought out before the Tribunal. The decision by the Tribunal, however, was agitated in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1237/2019 and vide orders dated 06.02.2019 the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to stay the orders by the Tribunal as well as further recoveries. The matter is presently sub-judice with the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
6.6 In view of the foregoing, the respondents pleaded that the OA needs to be dismissed.
6.7 It was further pleaded that in respect of matters where conflicting judgments are delivered by the two coordinate Benches of the Tribunal, the matter is required to be referred to a Larger Bench. This principle has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Col. G.S. Grewal, [(2014) 7 SCC 303, delivered on 28.05.2014].
The matter has been heard at length. Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel represented the applicant and Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel represented the case of the respondents in all the OAs whereas Shri Ashok Kumar, learned counsel represented the case of respondent No.4 in OA No.3830/2018.
The facts of this case are not in doubt. The applicant availed LTC to Srinagar in November, 2013. Admittedly, he purchased the tickets from an agent who is not listed in the Ministry of Finance OM dated 16.09.2010. The claim was settled for Rs.57,853/-.
8.1 On the reasoning that the ticket was neither purchased from the airline directly nor from an authorized agent listed in the said OM dated 16.09.2010, the entire amount has been taken to be ineligible and actually the recoveries have been ordered. Since expenditure is being met from Public Exchequer, it is necessary that Public Exchequer is not unduly burdened.
8.2 The respondents also pleaded that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (supra) is in the context to avoid financial stress on account of the recoveries. Accordingly, the respondents have taken care of this aspect and recoveries have been planned to be completed in five to six instalments.
8.3 The restriction in respect of agents is in the context to streamline whole procedure and to avoid fraudulent and excess claims. The respondents have clearly brought out as a result of detailed investigation that the applicants did not purchase the tickets from the authorized agents as listed in OM dated 16.09.2010. The prescribed rules for purchase of LTC tickets were thus violated.
8.4 The applicants were working in various capacities in Delhi Police. It is possible that they may not have been aware of the OM dated 16.09.2010 and purchased the tickets from a source which they believed to be proper. However, on such ignorance of the rules, the applicants cannot be allowed to violate the same even though this ignorance gets mitigated to some extent as even the bill passing office was unaware of rule position and allowed LTC settlement of claim. In view of clear position as it obtains in OM dated 16.09.2010 and reaffirmed on 28.11.2014, the contentions of applicants cannot be accepted.
In view of the foregoing the Tribunal is of the view that the LTC claims of the applicants cannot be allowed as these will be in violation of rules. Therefore, the OAs do not succeed. The same are dismissed being devoid of merits. The interim order, wherever granted, is hereby vacated.
No order as to costs.
Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each case.