Claim for tuition fee reimbursement dismissed for lack of supporting documentation and self-certification.

The applicant, a former Junior Clerk in the Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division, who started as a Rakshak on January 19, 1983, and retired as a Junior Clerk, claimed that tuition fee allowances for his two school-going children were denied from 2011 onwards without reason.

He submitted numerous representations, including Annexure A-2 dated May 10, 2017.

The respondents contended that the applicant had not submitted any application with original supporting documents and self-certification for reimbursement of tuition fees as mandated by Annexure R-1 Office Memorandum.

The applicant, in his rejoinder, reiterated that he was denied tuition fees from 2011 despite filing several applications.

1. Whether the applicant was illegally denied tuition fee allowances for his school-going children from 2011 onwards.

2. Whether the applicant had provided sufficient documentation and followed the prescribed procedure for claiming reimbursement of Children Education Allowance.

3. Whether the Original Application was sufficiently detailed to warrant relief.

The court primarily relied on the provisions of Annexure R-1(2) Office Memorandum, which governs the payment of Children Education Allowance (CEA) by way of reimbursement.

This Memorandum stipulates that an annual amount of Rs. 12,000/- is payable for the educational expenses of two school-going children, reimbursed upon the submission of original receipts and self-certification by the Government servant.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to discharge the initial burden of proof by not producing any documents to support his claim that he had requested reimbursement or submitted original receipts and self-certification for the tuition fees from 2011 onwards, as required by Annexure R-1 Office Memorandum.

The respondents explicitly denied receiving such applications with supporting documents.

The court noted that it is not expected to take evidence on disputed questions of fact, and the absence of probable materials from the applicant leads to an adverse inference against his claim.

Furthermore, the Original Application itself was found to lack necessary details and particulars regarding the amounts due, when and how the claim was sought, and details of documents furnished, stating only in an ambiguous manner that allowances were denied from 2011.

The claim was rejected, and the Original Application was dismissed, with no costs awarded.