Authorities must consider and reason on condonation of belated TA claims before rejecting them.

The applicant undertook an official tour from Dhulian to Kolkata in January 2020 and submitted his Travelling Allowance (TA) bill on 30 September 2020.

The bill was returned as being beyond the prescribed time limit under the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Office Memorandum (OM) dated 13 March 2018.

The applicant resubmitted the bill on 29 December 2020, explaining the delay and asserting that the tour had initially been undertaken with oral approval and was subsequently approved post facto by communication dated 2 September 2020.

The applicant later pursued the matter through representations and applications under the Right to Information Act.

In its communication dated 13 June 2024, the department stated that the bill had not been submitted within the stipulated period and could not be processed, while also indicating that no file noting had been made regarding the claim.

The applicant accordingly approached the Tribunal seeking settlement and payment of the TA claim with interest.

The respondents contended that the claim was time-barred because it was submitted beyond sixty days from completion of the journey and that the applicant had proceeded to Chennai on Leave Travel Concession (LTC) instead of returning to headquarters after the official tour.

Whether the respondents were justified in refusing to process the applicant’s TA claim solely on the ground that it was submitted beyond the prescribed period of sixty days.

Whether the competent authority was required to consider the applicant’s explanation for delay and exercise its discretionary power regarding a belated TA claim.

Whether the applicant’s alleged departure to Chennai on LTC affected his entitlement to reimbursement of admissible TA expenses for the official tour.

Whether the applicant was entitled to interest on the TA claim.

The Tribunal applied Rule 290 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, read with the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, OM dated 13 March 2018, under which a Government servant’s TA/DA claim is forfeited or deemed relinquished if it is not preferred within sixty days succeeding completion of the journey.

At the same time, the applicable instructions contemplate examination of belated claims by the Head of Department or competent authority where the claim is supported by documents, is genuine, and the delay is supported by valid reasons; the authority must therefore consider the relevant facts rather than reject the claim mechanically.

The Tribunal further applied the principles of administrative fairness, application of mind, reasoned decision-making, and non-arbitrariness, holding that employee grievances must be considered objectively and in accordance with the governing rules.

The Tribunal found that the respondents did not dispute the applicant’s assertion that the tour had been undertaken pursuant to oral approval and was subsequently approved post facto on 2 September 2020.

The applicant submitted the TA bill shortly thereafter, on 30 September 2020.

Although the respondents relied on the sixty-day limitation, the Tribunal held that the applicant had furnished an explanation for the delay and that the competent authority possessed discretion to examine and condone a belated claim where valid reasons and supporting documents were produced.

The rejection communication did not address the applicant’s explanation, the subsequent approval of the tour, or why the discretionary power was not exercised. It was therefore a mechanical and non-speaking decision.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s alleged travel to Chennai on LTC as a separate matter.

Any irregularity in proceeding on LTC without returning to headquarters could be examined while deciding the LTC claim, but it did not automatically extinguish the applicant’s entitlement to admissible TA expenses for the official journey.

The TA claim had to be restricted to the applicant’s lawful entitlement concerning travel, lodging, and food expenses.

Since the respondents had failed to undertake that assessment, the matter required reconsideration in accordance with the rules.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise preferably within thirty days from receipt of the order.

The prayer for immediate payment with 18% interest was rejected; however, if the respondents failed to comply within the stipulated period, the applicant would be entitled to 8% interest on the amount ultimately found payable, recoverable from the officials responsible for the delay.

No order as to costs was made.