LTC claims cannot be rejected solely because the department cannot trace its own approval records.

The applicant, a retired Senior Accounts Officer, claimed that her change of Home Town from Delhi to Kopargaon/Manmad, Maharashtra, had been approved in 2000 and recorded in her Service Book.

She had earlier received settlement of LTC claims in 2004, 2007 and 2010.

After undertaking a journey to Gangtok from 10 to 18 September 2016, she submitted an LTC claim of Rs. 91,542 against an advance of Rs. 48,150.

The respondents rejected the claim because the original Home Town change order could not be traced and recovered the advance from her retirement dues in 2017.

A departmental communication dated 10 February 2017 recorded that the change had been accepted by the competent authority, while noting that the personal file was not traceable.

In 2025, following proceedings before the Central Information Commission, the department confirmed that the records could not be located.

The applicant sought restoration of the recovered amount, settlement of her claim, interest and compensation.

Whether the applicant had shown sufficient cause for the Tribunal to consider her application despite the time elapsed since the 2017 recovery.

Whether the respondents could reject the 2016 LTC claim solely because the original order approving the change of Home Town was untraceable.

Whether the recovery of Rs. 48,150 from the applicant’s gratuity was sustainable in the circumstances.

Section 21(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 permits the Tribunal to admit an application after the prescribed limitation period where sufficient cause for delay is established.

LTC reimbursement is governed by the applicable CCS (LTC) Rules and remains subject to verification of the journey and the amount admissible under those rules.

The Tribunal considered the respondents’ reliance on Chandi Prasad Uniyal v. State of Uttarakhand, (2012) 8 SCC 417, and High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, (2016) 14 SCC 267, concerning recovery of payments said to be inadmissible; it held that recovery principles must be applied in the factual context, including whether the employee obtained payment through fraud or misrepresentation.

It also treated earlier official LTC settlements as corroborative evidence, while recognising that an earlier erroneous payment cannot by itself create an entitlement contrary to the rules.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s continued pursuit of the matter through departmental, grievance and RTI channels, together with the department’s admitted inability to trace its own records, as sufficient cause to consider the claim on its merits.

On the merits, it assessed the evidence cumulatively: the asserted 2000 approval, the 10 February 2017 departmental communication recording acceptance of the change, the earlier LTC settlements, and the subsequent confirmation that the file was untraceable.

The department’s failure to locate its record could not, by itself, be treated as proof that approval had never been given or impose an impossible burden on the retired applicant.

Because the advance had been sanctioned by the department and there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, recovery from gratuity based on the unresolved absence of the departmental record was not sustainable.

However, the Tribunal did not direct automatic payment of the full claimed amount; the claim remained subject to verification under the applicable LTC rules.

It quashed the rejection insofar as it rested solely on the non-availability of the Home Town change record and directed that the change to Kopargaon/Manmad be treated as established for considering the 2016 claim.

The respondents were directed to process and settle the claim under the applicable rules, refund the Rs. 48,150 recovered from gratuity with interest at the current GPF rate from 1 June 2017 until payment, and complete the exercise within three months of receiving the certified order.

The claim for Rs. 5 lakh compensation was declined; there was no order as to costs.