TA claims for COVID duty travel by private car must be considered where public transport was unavailable.

The applicant, an Air Force employee, was directed to perform temporary duty at different places during the COVID-19 period from March to July 2020.

He travelled in his personal car and submitted five TA claims between 19 March and 17 September 2020.

The respondents forwarded the claims for consideration but ultimately rejected them, citing delay and the absence of prior written permission to use his car.

Following an earlier Tribunal order directing a decision on his representation, the respondents issued the impugned rejection orders dated 9 and 13 December 2022.

The applicant sought to have those orders quashed and his claims paid under the Office Memorandum dated 10 July 2017, with interest.

1. Whether the respondents could reject or defer the applicant’s TA claims for official journeys during the COVID-19 period on the ground that he travelled in his own car without prior written permission.

2. Whether the applicant’s claims were to be considered and paid under the applicable rules and the Office Memorandum dated 10 July 2017, despite the respondents’ objection concerning delay.

The Tribunal directed consideration and payment of the claims in accordance with the “extant rules and provisions” and the Office Memorandum dated 10 July 2017, which it described as specifying TA rates for journeys by different modes of transport.

The judgment cited no statute or precedent and did not identify a specific rule governing prior permission or delayed submission; its decision rested on the circumstances of the official travel and the applicable TA framework.

The respondents accepted that the applicant had been directed to perform temporary duty during the relevant period.

The Tribunal considered that, with trains and buses not operational during lockdown, public transport was not a practicable alternative for those official journeys.

It also noted that the respondents had themselves recorded that the applicant performed the duties by car and had forwarded his claims for consideration.

In those circumstances, the Tribunal held that the claims should not have been rejected or left pending solely because the applicant used his own car, and required their assessment under the applicable TA rules and the 2017 Office Memorandum.

It directed the respondents to consider all the applicant’s TA claims and pay any amount due under the applicable rules and the Office Memorandum dated 10 July 2017 within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

If payment was not made within that period, interest at the GPF rate would apply.

No costs were awarded.