Recovery of LTC claims is impermissible after a significant delay where the lapse is purely administrative.

The applicant, a Scientist-F, applied for a change of his declared home town from Dewas to Pune in 1996.

Following this request, "Pune" was recorded as his home town in his service book, and the respondents subsequent sanctioned and settled his Home Town LTC claims for the block years 1994-95, 1998-99, and 2006-07.

In 2014—eighteen years after the initial application—the respondents reviewed the entry and declared it "unauthorized" due to the lack of a formal approval letter from the competent authority.

Consequently, vide order dated October 22, 2014, the respondents ordered the recovery of Rs. 65,325/- (the 2006-07 LTC claim) from the applicant’s salary.

The applicant's subsequent representation to regularize the change retrospectively was rejected on September 18, 2015.

1. Whether the respondents could legally recover LTC payments after nearly two decades based on a procedural lapse in the formal approval of a home town change that was already recorded and acted upon in the service book?

2. Whether the recovery initiated more than nine years after the settlement of the claim is sustainable under the prevailing law regarding recoveries from employees?

CCS (LTC) Rules, 1988, which govern the criteria for changing a home town and the departmental onus for verifying eligibility prior to sanctioning advances.

State of Punjab Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) (2014), which established that recoveries from employees are impermissible when the payment was made in excess of five years before the recovery order is issued, or where the recovery would be iniquitous and arbitrary.

Rule 15(1) of the CAT (Procedure) Rules for hearing matters in the absence of a party.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had fulfilled his obligation by applying for the change in 1996, and the fact that the department recorded "Pune" in his service book and settled three separate LTC cycles created a legitimate expectation.

The court found that any failure to issue a formal approval letter was a "procedural lapse" on the part of the department, not the employee.

Applying the Rafiq Masih principle, the Tribunal noted that the recovery was initiated more than nine years after the claim was settled, making it legally untenable.

Since there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation—the journey was actually performed and the bills were settled—the department cannot penalize the employee for its own failure to exercise due diligence at the time of sanctioning the advance.

The Tribunal quashed the impugned orders dated 22.10.2014 and 18.09.2015 and directed the respondents to refund the recovered amount of Rs. 65,325/- to the applicant with interest at the GPF rate within three months.