Satyendra Kumar Gaur vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Ors

The applicant Mr. Satyender Kumar Gaur is working as ASI in Delhi Police. He availed of LTC benefits for the block year 2010-11 and he was

sanctioned LTC advance of Rs.64,809/-. After completion of his journey and doing necessary adjustments an amount of Rs.74,966/- was sanctioned

to him on 15.12.2011. In the year, 2013, an audit was done and an objection was raised that the air ticket was purchased a the private agent whereas

Ministry of Finance, Government of India O.M dated 16.09.2010 provided that the air ticket must be purchased directly from airlines or by utilising

services of authorised travel agent. The recovery of Rs.74,966/- was ordered and Rs.7000/- per month has been deducted from the pay of the

applicant since August, 2018.

It is the contention of the applicant that he was not aware of the fact that he has to purchase the ticket only from the approved travel agents.

Further, on behalf of the respondents it has no where been alleged that he did not perform the journey. The only objection is that he did not purchase

the ticket from the authorised travel agent. He has claimed that he did not know that he had to purchase it only from authorised travel agents. He has

further stated that no notice was given to him and recovery was commenced. He has also stated that as per the law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme

Court of India in State of Punjab & Ors Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. 2014 (8) SCALE 613, decided on 18 December, 2014, since he had not

committed any fraud or misrepresentation, therefore, recovery is not permissible. He has sought quashing of impugned order dated 13.06.2018 by

which recovery of Rs.74,966/- has been directed and prayed that the amount recovered may be refunded with interest. On 23.10.2018 this Tribunal

directed the respondents not to effect any recovery from the applicant till the next date. This interim relief continued.

The respondents have asserted that the recovery is being effected in compliance with audit objections. They have stated that the LTC claim of the

applicant is in violation of O.M of 16.09.2010 as he has not purchased the ticket from the authorised travel agents. They have also stated that a copy

of the direction of the audit party was conveyed to the applicant through SHO/Krishna Nagar and a U.O was also sent to SHO Krishna Nagar to

inform HC S. K. Gaur. He was also informed telephonically for the recovery.

Heard Mr. Yogesh Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mananjay Mishra, learned counsel for respondents respectively. I have also

perused the records. After conclusion of arguments, learned counsel for respondents sought 1 day‟s time to file some rulings. They have not filed any

rulings so far.

The applicant has filed a copy of the order of this Tribunal in O.A No. 3835/2017 dated 28.05.2018. This Tribunal has allowed the O.A and passed

the following orders :-

“7.2 It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant did not avail the LTC or that the claim is fraudulent. It is largely the responsibility of the

department to ensure that Government Circular and terms of such OMs are effectively communicated to the employees. It is not hard to accept the

contention of the learned counsel of the applicant that an employee of the level of the applicant at hand, may not have known about a DoP&T

Circular/OM and the intricacies involved. Indeed, ignorance of law cannot come to rescue of the defaulters but this maxim has to be applied after

evaluating the facts in their entirety. Schemes like Leave Travel Concession (LTC) and Home Travel Concession (HTC) etc. have been carved out

as a kind of a reward/motivation for the work put in by the government officials for long years of dedicated service, (once in 04 years or 02 years as

the case may be). The condition of buying the tickets through the authorized agents is to streamline (presumably) and to ensure that the Scheme is not

misused by way of fraudulent or inflated claims. The same is not the case here. The applicant unaware of the provisions of LTC and technicalities to

be followed, bought the tickets from a genuine travel agent and availed of the concession, which he believed to be legally due to him. The reimbursed

amount is neither false, nor inflated. Courts have consistently held (though in different contexts) that individuals should not be punished for overlooking

technical formalities and be deprived of his claims, which he is otherwise entitled to as per law.

Also, no show cause notice has been given to the applicant and he has been confronted with recovery, which is against principles of natural justice.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, I allow the O.A. and hold that the applicant is entitled for Leave Travel Concession available to him as per

law. Recovery made from the applicant, in pursuance of the impugned order dated 25.08.2017 be refunded to him forthwith, and in any case not later

than three months time from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.â€​

The present case of Mr. Satyender Kumar Gaur is similar to the cited case and as in that case, it has not been contended that he did not perform

the journey but simply that he did not buy the ticket from the authorised travel agent. Further, the respondents have not filed a copy of any show cause

notice given to the applicant. They have stated that a copy of the direction of the audit party was conveyed to the applicant and was sent to the SHO

Krishna Nagar, but it is not clear that the notices were served on the applicant. Further, it is also not clear whether what was served was the audit

party objection or whether it was notice for recovery. In the absence of any clarification on this by the respondents and the fact that no copy of any

show cause notice has been filed by them, it cannot be said that adequate notice against recovery was given to the applicant, which is against the

principles of natural justice.

In light of the above, the O.A is allowed and it is held that the applicant is entitled to LTC available to him as per law. Recovery made to the

applicant in pursuance of the impugned order dated 13.06.2018 be refunded to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.