Facts
The applicant, a Sub Postmaster (SPM) at Swaraj Ashram SO, Cuttack, sought Leave Travel Concession (LTC) for the block year 2020-21 to visit Guwahati.
Source reference: p. 3Permission and a TA advance were granted by Respondent No. 3.
Source reference: p. 3The applicant booked air tickets directly from Spicejet Airlines for the Kolkata-Guwahati sector, believing it was permitted under a 2014 DOPT OM.
Source reference: p. 3-4After the journey, the department sanctioned a reimbursement of ₹68,800. However, following an internal audit, the respondents initiated a recovery of the full amount, deducting ₹9,487 from his July 2023 salary.
Source reference: p. 2-3The audit objection was based on DOPT OMs dated 31.12.2021 and 16.02.2022, which mandated that air tickets for Government accounts must be booked only through three authorized travel agents (Balmer Lawrie, Ashok Travels, and IRCTC).
Source reference: p. 4, 6Issues
1. Whether the recovery of LTC reimbursement is legally sustainable solely on the ground that tickets were purchased directly from an airline rather than authorized travel agents.
Source reference: p. 7-82. Whether the technical violation of purchasing tickets prior to formal LTC permission or through unauthorized channels warrants the total forfeiture of the LTC benefit when the journey was admittedly performed.
Source reference: p. 7-8Law Applied
The court primarily applied the DOPT Office Memorandums dated 31.12.2021 and 16.02.2022, which revised air travel booking procedures following the disinvestment of Air India, requiring all bookings to be made through three authorized agents.
Source reference: p. 5-7Clause 6 of the OM dated 31.12.2021, which empowers Heads of Departments (not below the rank of Joint Secretary) to grant relaxation in cases of booking through unauthorized agents under unavoidable circumstances.
Source reference: p. 6, 8The court followed the precedent set by the CAT Principal Bench in Dr. Sanjay Prasad Anr. Vs UOI Ors (OA 750/2021) and the Delhi High Court in Joginder Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which emphasize that technical lapses in booking should not result in the denial of legitimate travel claims.
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s travel was undisputed and initially sanctioned by the competent authority.
Source reference: p. 7It dismissed the respondents' argument regarding "booking prior to permission" as overly technical, noting that DOPT guidelines actually encourage early booking to minimize costs to the exchequer.
Source reference: p. 7Regarding the failure to use authorized agents, the Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to exercise the relaxation powers provided under Clause 6 of the 31.12.2021 OM.
Source reference: p. 8The court held that an audit objection cannot be treated as a "sacrosanct document" to adversely affect an employee's interests without verifying the justifiability of the objection or providing an opportunity for a hearing.
Source reference: p. 8Applying the principle of parity, the Tribunal adopted the reasoning from its previous decision in OA No. 443 of 2023, concluding that the recovery was arbitrary since the applicant had actually performed the journey and the procedural lapse was minor.
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, holding that the recovery was unjustified.
It directed the respondents to allow the reimbursement of air fares for the LTC journey performed by the applicant and his family and to settle the claim (including refunding any recovered amounts) within 60 days of the order.
Source reference: p. 8-9No costs were awarded.
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Shyam Sundar DaleivsDEPARTMENT OF POST
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in