AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sh. C.Raja Ram with Ms. Shashi Panwar, learned counsel for applicant and Sh. Vijay Pandita, learned counsel for respondents.
The applicant pleads that while she was in service, she had claimed LTC for travelling to Andaman and back in October 2012. For this purpose she had taken certain advance and after return from the trip, the accounts were settled. However, at the time of her retirement on 31.05.2015 she was served a memorandum on 07.08.2015 wherein she was asked to remit the amount of Rs.1,62,216 plus penal interest drawn on account of said LTC journey of 2012. This amount was for three persons @ Rs.54,072 each. This refund was asked on the plea that the ticket was not purchased from the authorised agents etc. In the event, the respondents deducted an amount of Rs.2,03,424/- from her gratuity (Rs.1,60,494 towards Principal and Rs.42,930 towards interest @ 10.7%).
The applicant pleaded that there are many judgments including by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the pension and gratuity is taken to be the personal propriety and no deductions are permitted from these amounts. The applicant pleaded that the amount cannot be deducted since the respondents have not issued even a show cause notice.
Applicant drew attention to the judgment of Hon'ble SupremeCourt State of Uttar Pradesh and ors. vs. Dhirendra Pal Singh and ors., (2017) 1 SCC 49 and Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. Punjab National Bank and ors., (2009) 1 SCC 376. The applicant also drew attention to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur titled Karnail Singh vs. The General Manager, Bishrampur Area of SECL Writ Appeal No.56/2017 decided on 17.03.2017 wherein it was held that pension and gratuity are like personal property of the concerned employee from which deductions are not feasible.
The respondents pleaded that the amount drawn as advance was under LTC-80 Scheme. However, subsequently it has come to light that the tickets were not purchased from the authorised agents or the air line as was required under LTC-80 scheme. The relevant directions for this LTC-80 Scheme are contained in office memorandum dated 16.09.2010. The relevant para of the same is reproduced below:
"2. LTC:
(i) Travel by Air India only.
(ii) In Economy class only, irrespective of entitlement.
(iii) 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)."
The respondents had subsequently received a complaint against the said availment of LTC by the applicant and got a verification done from Air India. It is seen from reply dated 05.11.2014 from Air India that the tickets were not issued under LTC-80 Scheme. The reply by the Air India is reproduced below:
"This is with reference to the letter F1(2014)/92/DDUH/Estt/13623 dated 08/08/2014.
The ticketnos 0982873013263/64/65 were issued by AIR INDIA authorised agent M/s Travel Co. Delhi in low economy class fare (RBD T/V) INR22775/- inclusive of taxes per person for Delhi-Portblair-Delhi secotr favouring Mr Deepanker Chowdhary/Ms Tanushree Chowdhary and Mrs. Shankuntla Devi.
The tickets were not issued under LTC scheme."
On receipt of complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the applicant on 07.07.2014. Thereafter, memo was issued to the applicant on 07.08.2015 to refund the said amount along with interest. The relevant portion of this letter is reproduced below:
"Whereas Ms. Shakuntala Devi claimed reimbursement of LTC for the block year 2010-13 amounting to Rs.1,62,216/ for three persons (Rs.54072/- for each) for visiting Port Blair. Subsequently a letter was sent to Air India for verification of genuineness of Air tickets with LTC claim (Port Blair) In response to the letter Air India have sent the information as follows.
(i) the tickets were not issued in LTC 80 Scheme.
(ii) The tickets were issued by the unauthorized agent.
(iii) The Low economy class fare INR-22775/- inclusive of taxes per person for Delhi-Portblair-Delhi sector.
The claim of Ms. Shakuntala Devi was therefore reviewed in consultation with the Accounts functionary and it was found that the Air tickets submitted by her are fabricate and not genuine. Her LTC claim is therefore rejected and Smt. Shakuntala Devi is hereby directed to remit the amount of Rs.1,62,216/- plus penal interest within 7 days failing which necessary action will be initiated against her."
This was however not refunded.
Accordingly, an amount of Rs.2,03,424/- (Rs.1,60,494 as was sanctioned in December 2012 for three tickets + Rs.42,930 towards interest for the period December 2012 to May 2015 @10.7%) was recovered from the gratuity for which a proper recovery instruction was issued on 23.10.2015. It was copied to applicant also.
The respondents also drew attention to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled Chandi Prasad Uniyal and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2012) 8 SCC 417 wherein it was held that the recoveries are permissible in certain circumstances.
The matter was heard at length. It was admitted by the applicant that they had travelled to Andaman under LTC-80 Scheme even though the tickets were not purchased from authorised agencies as was prescribed under the provisions of LTC- 80 Scheme (para 4 supra). However, the advance drawn and the claim was already settled in 2012 itself with total amount of three tickets being Rs.1,60,494.
However, since the tickets were not drawn from the authorised agencies, the respondents have subsequently disallowed the same and recovered the entire amount from gratuity. However, it is not the case of the respondents that the applicant has not travelled at all.
It is seen from the reply submitted by the respondents that Air India charge was Rs.22,775 per person and since three persons had travelled, an amount of Rs.68,325 would have been spent by applicant had she purchased the ticket as per LTC-80. Thus certain overcharging is apparent.
However, be that as it may, it is taken that an amount of Rs.68,325/- for the three tickets, is due to be reimbursed to the applicant.
This is a case of a retired employee now and hence under the peculiar circumstances of the case (advance was drawn, journey was performed, expenditures were settled in the year 2012, complaints received subsequently and found to be correct, full recoveries were subsequently made in the year 2015), respondents are now directed to pay Rs.68,325/- to the applicant within a period of eight weeks for journey performed in 2012. However, no interest shall be payable on this amount. Accordingly, OA is partially allowed with these directions. No order as to costs.