Denying LTC reimbursement parity to similarly situated employees violates Article 14 and constitutes arbitrary discrimination.

The applicant, a retired officer of the Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (ERTL), availed of a Leave Travel Concession (LTC) advance of ₹63,000 in 2016 for a trip to Lakshadweep

After submitting his claim on November 21, 2016, the Pay and Accounts Officer (PAO) objected to the "LTC package" and directed the applicant to refund ₹22,044, calculating his entitlement based on 2008 rates rather than actual expenditure

Through an RTI inquiry, the applicant discovered that ten other government employees who traveled during the same period were reimbursed transportation charges at the rate of ₹14,630 per adult, whereas the applicant was sanctioned only ₹4,460

The respondents contended that the 'Society for Promotion of Nature Tourism and Sports' (SPORTS) was not an approved mode of transport in 2016 and that the applicant's claim, having been "closed" to facilitate his retirement in 2017, could not be reopened

1. Whether the respondents’ action of reimbursing the applicant at a significantly lower rate than similarly situated employees constitutes discrimination and a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution

2. Whether the departmental finality ("closed claim") precludes the reopening of a settlement when subsequent clarifications or parity with other employees suggest an error in calculation

The Tribunal relied upon the constitutional guarantees of equality and the right to life with dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

It further considered the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the DOPT clarifications regarding the approval of SPORTS as a valid mode of transport for LTC purposes, which were applied retrospectively to other employees but denied to the applicant

The Tribunal found the respondents' refusal to reopen the claim to be "adamant" and "illogical"

It noted that the respondents had granted the full reimbursement of ₹14,630 to seven other individuals cited in the RTI response but denied the same to the applicant, which amounted to clear discrimination

The court observed that since sea and air are the only two modes of reaching Lakshadweep, it was unreasonable to disqualify the applicant's transport via SPORTS, especially since the DOPT later clarified that such claims were permissible for other officers for the same period

The Tribunal criticized the respondents for forcing a senior citizen into litigation over a paltry sum of ₹22,000, emphasizing that technical finality cannot override the principles of justice and parity

It held that the applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of his LTC claim as per the 2017 rules and the DOPT clarification. The respondents were directed to settle the claim at the rate of ₹14,630 per adult instead of ₹4,460

No order was passed as to costs