DR RADHIKADEVI D vs OFFICIAL LANGUAGE

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A No.180/00431/2024

th
Tuesday, this the 6 day of October, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dr. Radhikadevi D, Aged 62 years, Retd Dy. Director,
Hindi Teaching Scheme, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Bengaluru, Residing at Devikrishna,
Ushas Nagar, Kakkanad, Ernakulam, Kerala-682030
-Applicant
[By Advocate : Mr. Sabu M Philip]
Versus
1. Union of India, Rep. by Secretary
Department of Official Language,
Ministry of Home Affairs, NDCC Bldg,
Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001
2. Director, Central Hindi Trg. Institute
Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language
P.Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003
3. Dy Director (West) in charge, Ministry of Home Affairs,
Dept. of Official Language, Kendriya Sadan, Belapur,
Navi Mumbai 500014
4. Dy. Director, Hindi T&S & Office Head, Central Hindi Trg. Institute
Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language
P.Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. M.N.Manmadan, SCGSC]
The Original Application having been heard on 10.09.2026, the
Tribunal on 06.10.2026 delivered the following:
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

2
O R D E R
Applicant is a retired Deputy Director, Hindi Teaching Scheme under
the Ministry of Home Affairs. She retired from service on 31.12.2022 from
the Bangalore Office. She is a native of Kochi in Kerala. After retirement,
she submitted her transfer claims including Transfer Allowance, TA,
Composite Transfer Grant, CTG etc. through Annexure-A2 request dated
16.05.2023. But the claims were not granted to her, ultimately, the
respondents rejected the claim through Annexure-A1(2) communication
dated 12.07.2024. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has approached
the Tribunal seeking to set aside Annexure-A1 order and to issue an order
or direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondents to grant TA and
CTG as claimed by her. She also seeks interest at 18% from the date of the
application.
2. After Annexure-A2 request for TA and CTG she made reminder
through Annexure-A3. Then certain clarifications were sought and she
submitted additional documents as requested. Even after repeated
correspondences, the claim has not been hounoured and that made her to
approach the Tribunal.
3. According to the applicant, she is a retired lady officer, who had
put in her best in the service of the nation and superannuated after 33
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

3
years service and now she is made to run from pillar to post for sanctioning
the TA and CTG eligible to her. It has been 18 months since her
superannuation and yet the respondents have not been able to disburse her
dues, which made her to send reminders and as a last resort she has
approached the Tribunal seeking the above stated reliefs.
4. Detailed reply has been filed by the respondents. According to
them, the Original Application is not maintainable since the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus. Further, it is submitted that
during the pendency of the O.A., arrears pending as HRA and CTG have
been paid to the applicant on 31.12.2021 and 19.09.2024 respectively. It is
admitted that through Annexure-A2 the applicant had submitted claim for
TA and CTG along with bills to the Regional Office, Hindi Teaching Scheme
rd
(West), Navi Mumbai, office of the 3 respondent. But the following
deficiencies were found in the claim:
a) Photocopy of the bill was sent in place of original bill;
b) Money receipt was not attached, initially. However, on the
insistence of the office, a receipt with illegible stamp printed on
ordinary paper instead of the company’s letter head was submitted by
the applicant subsequently;
c) Two copies of the same bill for transfer of household goods were
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

4
presented by the applicant, however, serial numbers of both the bills
were different;
d) Overwriting was also found on the bills presented by the applicant;
e) The amount with respect to the above bills were paid into the
account of a particular person (Nihal Singh) and not to the transport
company.
5. When these discrepancies were brought to the notice of the
applicant and asked her to send the original bills so that appropriate
payment can be effected against the claim, instead of rectifying the mistake
and furnishing explanation on the above discrepancies, the applicant sent
Annexure-R2 email to the Director stating that despite sending all the bills,
rd
her amount was not paid. The 3 respondent then informed the Director
that the applicant is trying to create pressure by complaining instead of
sending the correct documents and that the claim can be honoured only
when original documents are made available to the respondents.
Subsequently, the Bangalore office was instructed to forward No Due
Certificate immediately for claiming the withheld DCRG of Rs.30,000/- with
respect to the applicant.
6. According to the respondents, the applicant had responded to
rd
the communication issued by the 3 respondent belatedly, since she was
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

5
rd th
abroad. Later, the 3 respondent was directed by the office of the 4
respondent to take immediate action in the matter and inform the Director
rd
through Annexure-R4 communication. The 3 respondent was directed
that if he is satisfied with the explanation given by the applicant, then
action regarding payment of amount can be taken or if he is not satisfied,
Director shall be informed by proposing appropriate action with his
comments. The copy of that communication is marked as Annexure-R5.
rd
7. Meanwhile, through Annexure-R6 the 3 respondent informed
the Director that the applicant was repeatedly informed about her ‘fake
bills’ and that she had repeatedly sent a new revised bill having different bill
number, lorry number, payment mode etc.; contact numbers of the
company do not match, the stamp on the cash receipt was not clear and the
bill is not on letter head. The bills which she claim as original are actually
edited JPG colour copies of the bills having multiple overwriting and hence
it was decided that except her transport bill, which is not appropriate, all
other claims can be paid subsequent to which Director expressed his
consent. Later, through Annexure-R7 dated 07.02.2024 she informed the
Director that Regional Office has created baseless reasons for stopping
payment of her bills and since the previous Deputy Director retired, her bills
rd
should be paid. But, on the basis of the report of the 3 respondent and
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

6
th
the Head of Office, Hindi Teaching Scheme (West), Mumbai, the 4
respondent in Annexure-R8 letter informed the applicant that her transport
claim appears to be based on fake bills. Hence to explain why the matter
should not be forwarded to the concerned agency for investigation and if in
any case the fake bills are confirmed, then why disciplinary action should
not be taken against her. According to the respondents, the applicant did
not give any reply to Annexure-R8, instead made complaint against the
Director and Deputy Director and Head of Office to the Secretary,
Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi,
through Annexure-R9. Annexure-R9 would reveal that applicant had raised
various allegations against the Director without even attempting to answer
the discrepancies in the bills submitted by her.
8. Further, it is submitted that without rectifying the errors
pointed out by the respondents in the claim made, the applicant was
submitting complaints to the Prime Minister of India, Home Minister,
Minister of State for Home, Joint Secretary etc. raising allegations against
respondents, as seen in Annexure-R10. In the light of these developments,
th
the 4 respondent contacted the given mobile number in the bills and
found that the said mobile number does not belong to the DHL Relocation
Company, but to a private person, one Mr.Sandeep, who is working in a firm
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

7
named Suncity. The toll free number written on the bill was also found to
be associated to Design Village College and not to M/s.DHL Relocation as
claimed by the applicant. On these developments, the Assistant Director
was directed to physically scrutinize the address given in the bill. It was
directed that if the bills are found to be genuine, they should be paid
immediately and if they are found to be fake, then case should be handed
over to the competent agency for investigation.
9. According to the respondents, accordingly, the Assistant
Director, Anilkumar Sahu along with an Upper Division Clerk, Smt.Lakshmi
Iyer conducted physical verification of the address of DHL Relocation, Plot
No.143/4, HSR Layout, Sector 7, Mangammana Palya Road, Bangalore and
said that they could not find out the above address: thereafter they
enquired from the people around Mangammana and also from
Bommanahalli Sub Post Office and HSR Sub Post Office of the area, but
could not get any information about the place. Officials of both the Post
Offices confirmed that the above address is not in their knowledge.
Similarly, on the basis of Annexure-R14, the Assistant Director, Mumbai
reported that the bill was fake and there seems to be no need to check the
Delhi address of the transport company, because the bill has been issued by
the Bangalore office. Similarly, letters were sent by the Central Hindi
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

8
Institute, Delhi to M/s.DHL Relocation at the Bangalore and Delhi addresses
to verify the bill, but the same communications were returned by the Postal
Department undelivered, with the comment of non-availability of offices at
the addresses in Bangalore and Delhi.
10. Further, enquiries were made as to whether the GST amounts
in the given GST registration numbers were remitted in the registration
number and address, but the Bangalore office reported that the GST office
located in Delhi should be contacted, but it could not be ascertained that
the amount was paid in Bangalore. Thereafter, Commissioner, GST, Central
Goods and Services, RK Puram, Delhi was addressed to enquire whether
CGST of Rs.4,950/- and SGST of Rs.4,950/- deducted in the bill have been
deposited in the Government account or not.
11. Thereafter, Sri.Krishna, Advisor (Administrative Officer), Central
Hindi Training Institute was directed through Annexure-R19 order dated
08.05.2024 to visit the address of M/s.DHL Relocation branch office, Plot
No.20, Ground Floor, Village Bijwasan, Near Fitness Club, Dwaraka Sector-
27, New Delhi-110061. Sri.Krishna, after making enquiries, has reported
that the given address of M/s.DHL Relocation is neither in Bijwasa nor in
Dwaraka Sector 27. The office is not available at the given address, that one
office cannot have two addresses which are at least 4-5 kms apart. Thus he
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

9
concluded that such an address of the transporting company was also not
available and a report was given to the respondents. According to the
respondents, since investigation was undergoing it was not appropriate to
make payment of TA and CTG until the investigation of errors in transport
allowance was completed. However, after the situation regarding payment
of transport allowance became clear from the letter dated 21.06.2024 of
the Central Hindi Training Institute and as soon as the quarterly budget was
received on 28.08.2024, the remaining bills of the applicant, i.e. CTG and
airfare were duly paid on 19.09.2024.
12. To sum up, it is submitted that original bills were not produced
by the applicant; coloured photocopy of voucher number-32545 of DHL
Relocation, Bengaluru was attached instead of original vouchers. CTG
application was also incomplete. It is also submitted that an amount of
Rs.67,900/- was claimed for transportation, but the online receipt is for
Rs.65,000/ only. Moreover, Rs 67,900/- was shown in the cash receipt on
Phone Pay without receipt on any letter head as per rule. Even though the
Director had stated that some documents were received, however, after
checking those documents they were found to be erraneous. To sum up,
the respondents have prayed for dismissing the O.A.
13. The applicant filed rejoinder asserting that all the bills
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

10
submitted on 16.05.2023 were original. Regarding two lorry numbers
bearing in the claim, it is submitted that the first lorry had collected the
items from the applicant’s residence and later 'transshipped' to another
vehicle for onward transportation to Kochi and that is the reason for having
shown two lorry numbers. So, she asserted that the entire amount is liable
to be paid.
14. To this, the respondents filed an additional reply reiterating
their earlier contentions.
15. Heard Sri. Sabu M Philip, learned counsel for the applicant and
Ms.Gouri Balagopal representing Sri.M.N.Manmadan, learned Senior
Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, elaborately.
16. The claim of the applicant for TA, CTG etc. was submitted
through Annexure-A2. However, discrepancies, already noticed, were found
by the respondents and the applicant was directed to explain the
discrepancies and to cure the defects. However, instead of curing the
nd
defect, the applicant made complaint to the 2 respondent, the Director,
alleging that the respondents are not honouring her claim. Ultimately, the
relationship between the applicant and the respondents worsened and the
applicant started raising allegations even against the Director and thus
complaints were given at the level of the Prime Minister and such higher
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

11
ups; ultimately, the respondents made detailed investigation into the claims
made by the applicant and found that the documents produced by her were
fake. They also made enquiries with regard to the addresses of DHL
Relocation, which was the agency entrusted for transportation and
movement of the personal belongings. Their address in Bangalore could
not be traced. Thereafter, their address in Delhi also could not be located.
Officials of the respondents were sent for making physical verification and it
was found that the Bangalore address was not existing. Similarly, Delhi
address also could not be traced with the address shown in the invoice. It is
interesting to extract paragraphs 3 to 5 of Annexure-R20 report given by
Sri.Krishna, Advisor (Administrative Officer), who was sent specifically for
the purpose of ascertaining the Delhi address of DHL Relocation. He
reported thus:
“3. The address given also had the address of village
Bijwasan, so after extensive enquiry for 2-3 hours, I decided to go
to the post office of village Bijwasan which was 4-5 kms from
there. I reached the post office Bijwasan pin code 110061 which is
just after the end of the railway flyover. I asked the post master
Mr. Chandrika Prasad about the said address. He talked to the
concerned personnel over the phone and told that this address is
creating a contradiction because Dwarka Sector 27 and village
Bijwasan have been combined in it. So this address is not correct.
The PIN code of Dwarka Sector 27, which is towards Chhawla
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

12
village from the railway line is 110075 and the PIN code towards
Bijwasan village from the railway line is 110061. Nevertheless, the
nearest fitness club is located at a distance of 50-60 yards from
here, on the right side of where the railway flyover ends, about
250-300 meters away, on the corner of another lane which goes to
the right from this lane.
4. As told by Shri Chandrika Prasad, Postmaster, went to the
fitness club and tried to call on the mobile number mentioned
there, but one phone number was not picked up and the second
phone number was not reachable. Hence, no information was
obtained. Then I inquired from the people available in the shops
and houses nearby, went about 200-300 meters in two-three lanes
and asked whoever I met and the person available in other offices
of packers and movers about M/s DHL relocation, but no one
confirmed the given address and company. It was 4-5 in the
evening while I was inquiring at all the possible places, but no
information was obtained.
5. From the above enquiry, I have come to the conclusion
that the given address of M/s DHL Relocation is contradictory. It is
neither in Bijwasan nor in Dwarka Sector 27. Hence, this office is
not available at the given address because one office cannot have
two addresses which are at least 4-5 kms apart. The conclusion is
that M/s DHL Relocation neither has an office at the given
address, nor the address is correct.”
17. It has come out that the applicant retired from service on
31.12.2022. Thereafter, through Annexure-A2 communication dated
16.05.2023 she made claims for transfer or superannuation TA, which
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

13
included the air fare of herself and her husband and transportation of
personal effects for Rs.67,900/-. Evidently, there were discrepancies in the
documents produced by the applicant. It is the specific case of the
respondents that she did not produce the original bills and vouchers from
the transporting agency. Two bills produced by her contained different
numbers. Moreover, the cash receipt was not on a letter head of the said
company. While Rs.67,900/- was claimed as charge for transportation of
personal belongings, the phone pay details showed payment of only
Rs.65,000/-. Similarly, the cash receipt was on a white paper and its seal
was not legible. There were serious other discrepancies also. When the
applicant raised allegations against the officials including the Director,
naturally, they decided to make detailed investigation into the genuineness
of the documents produced by the applicant. It is specifically stated that if
the documents are genuine, she will be paid the amount; on the other
hand, if the documents are found not genuine, appropriate action would be
taken against her.
18. As stated earlier, numerous discrepancies were noticed in the
vouchers and bills produced by the applicant. Lorry numbers were different
in two bills. When this was asked, she did not give any explanation. But in
the rejoinder, it is submitted that the items were transported in one lorry
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

14
from her place of residence in Bangalore, which was 'transshipped' to
another lorry for transportation to Kochi etc. These are not believable
versions. Moreover, the respondents had made enquiries about the address
shown in the invoices of DHL Relocation and could not trace them either in
Bangalore or in New Delhi. The New Delhi address was confusing besides
did not give any idea about the location.
19. The specific case of the applicant is that she had produced the
original bills, but that has been denied by the respondents. According to
them, some bill were edited JPG colour copies and that could not be taken
into consideration. That means, there are disputed questions of facts with
regard to the genuineness of the bills produced by the applicant. The
respondents can be directed to honour the bills only if it is found that the
bills were genuine and trustworthy. These matters will be subjected to
scrutiny by the audit authorities in future and if any bill is found to be not
genuine, the disbursing authority would be held responsible in future and
therefore, they cannot be blamed for insisting on true and correct
documents for processing the bills.
20. Even though personal allegations were raised against some of
the respondents, we do not find any reason to go by such contentions.
These are money matters. Officials are very much cautious in honouring
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

15
such bills. As the documents produced by the applicant were suspected to
be not genuine and she could not convince about the genuineness of the
bills, this Tribunal is not expected to direct the respondents to pay the
amount based on doubtful materials.
21. When doubts were raised about the genuineness of the bills, it
is for the applicant to prove that they are genuine, beyond doubt. Here,
there were incongruities which are not explained. In the wake of such
anomalies, the claim made by the applicant cannot be honoured.
22 . It has been submitted that arrears towards HRA etc. were due,
but that have already been paid. Similarly, except the amount covering
these doubtful documents, all claims have been satisfied. Any how,
payment of gratuity, arrears of HRA etc. are not the subject matter of this
application. The Tribunal cannot issue any direction since the applicant
could not convince the respondents about the genuineness of the
documents produced by her.
Resultantly, the Original Application fails and is dismissed. No costs.
th
(Dated, this the 6 day of October, 2026)
JUSTICE K. HARIPAL
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

16
List of Annexures
Annexure A-1 True copy of Letter No. DD(W)TRA.ALLOWANCE/2024-
25/1547 Dated 12.7.2024 By Asst. Director & Office Head, Ministry of Home
Affairs, Dept of Official Language, Navi Mumbai along with English
translation
Annexure A-2- True copy of Letter dated 16.5.23 along with bills of the
applicant Along with English translation.
Annexure A-3 True copy of letter dated 2.8.23 by applicant along with
English translation
Annexure A-4 True copy of letter dated 6.10.23 by applicant along with
English translation
Annexure A -5- True copy of letter dated 12.1.24 by applicant along with
English translation
Annexure A-6- True copy of Gmail dated 2.3.24 by applicant along with
English translation
Annexure A-7-True copy of Letter No. DD(W)TRA. ALLOWANCE/2024-
25/1292 dated 14.6.2024 by Asst. Director & 2 Office Head, Ministry of
Home Affairs, Dept of Official Language, Navi Mumbai along with English
translation
Annexure A-8- A true copy of the WhatsApp message and its translation
Annexure A-9- True copy of the letter No. nil dated 13.5.2024 from Suncity
Relocations, Bengaluru
Annexure-R1- True copy letter No.D.D(West) /Travelling Allowance /2023-
24/3223 dated 07.11.2023
Annexure-R2- True copy of the email communication of the Applicant sent
to the Director of Central Hindi Training Institute, New Delhi dated
13.11.2023
Annexure-R3- True copy of e-mail communication dated 15.11.2023 sent by
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

17
rd
the 3 Respondent to the Director, Central Hindi Training Institute
Annexure-R4- True copy of letter No. P/R(54)/89-CHTI/271 dated
rd
31.01.2024 issued by the office of the 4th Respondent to the 3
Respondent
Annexure-R5- True copy of letter No. P/R(54)/89-CHTI/189 dated
rd
17.01.2024 issued by the office of the 4th Respondent to the 3
Respondent
Annexure-R6- True copy of the note number DD(W)/Travel Allowance/2023-
24/209 dated 30.01.2024
Annexure-R7- True copy of letter sent by the Applicant dated 07.02.2024
Annexure-R8- True copy of 4th respondent letter No. P/R(54)/89-CHTI/481,
dated 22.02.2024
Annexure-R9- True copy of letter dated 01.03.2024 sent by the applicant to
the Secretary, Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs
Annexure-R10- True copy of the complaint sent on CPGRAM dated
02.03.2024
Annexure-R11- True copy of the letter no. P/R(54)/89-CHTI/615 of Central
Hindi Training Institute dated 07.03.2024
Annexure-R12- True copy of letter No.DD(W)/Travel Allowance/2023-24/
456 dated 07.03.2024 issued by the Assistant Director and Head of Office
(West), Mumbai
Annexure R13- True copy of the letter No. SIB/Administration/2024/180
dated 15.03.2024 of Assistant Director (Hindi Typing and Hindi
Stenography), Central Hindi Training Sub-Institute, Bengaluru
Annexure R14- True copy of the letter sent by Assistant Director and Head
of Office, Mrs. Gargi Gadgil bearing letter No. DD(W)/Travel Allowance/
2023-24/553 dated 19.03.2024
Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'

18
Annexures-R15 (a) and R15 (b) -True copies of letter No. P/R (54)/89-CHTI/
635 and 636 dated 08.03.2024 respectively
Annexures-R16 - True copy of the letter sent by they Director, Central Hindi
Training Institute, New Delhi bearing letter No. P/R (54)/89 CHTI/949 dated
05.04.2024
Annexure R17- A true copy of letter No. DD(West)/Travelling Allowance/
2024-25/877 dated 25.04.2024 issued by the Assistant Director and Head of
Office, Hindi Teaching Scheme (West), Mumbai
Annexure R18- True copy of letter no. P/R(54)/89-CHTI1/52 dated
07.05.2024
Annexure R19-True copy of the letter No. P/R(54)/89-CHTI/1186, dated
08.05.2024
Annexure R20- A true copy of the report submitted by the administrative
officer dated 21.05.2024
Annexure R21 (a): True copy of the letter No.P/RDD/23-24/3589 dated
22.11.2023
R21 (b): True copy of the English Translation of Annexure R21(a) letter No.
P/RDD/23-24/3589 dated 22.11.2023

Deepa S 2026.10.16 15:21:43+05'30'