UPENDRANATH NAYAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With effect from Oct. 11, 1956, the Central Government introduced Leave Travel Concession (in short, "L. T. C.") with a view to rendering assistance to its servants serving at places away from their homes for journey to their homes and back to their places of service during regular leave. This concession was extended to journeys to places other than home towns or villages from 1974. The concession was available to a servant and such members of his family as were entitled to travelling allowance on transfer. The journey was to be undertaken by the shortest route and class of accommodation would be the same as the one to which the servant was entitled to under the travelling allowance rules.

(2.) The petitioners are Class IV employees serving in the Proof and Experiment Establishment at Chandipur in the district of Balasore, under Opposite Party No. 2, the Commandant of the establishment. They availed L. T C. and travelled by train. It has been alleged that petitioners 1 to 5 visited Delhi, petitioners 6 to 8 visited Dwaraka, petitioners 9 and 1ft visited Bombay and petitioners 11 to 16 journeyed to Gulmarg. Petitioners 1 to 10 themselves purchased the railway tickets, petitioners 11 to 16 travelled by Tirtha Special Train. They have alleged that the tickets purchased by them were surrendered at the destination stations. As the Railways have discontinued the practice of granting money receipts, some of them produced receipts from railway officials at Balasore Station indicating the serial numbers of tickets purchased by them in proof of their having undertaken the journey. Those who travelled by Tirth Special Train produced receipts and also certificates granted by the agents certifying that they had actually performed the journey, The opposite party No. 2, however, rejected their claims and directed recovery of the amounts advanced from the salary of the petitioners. The petitioners thereupon moved this Court in O. J. C. No. 270 of 1983. This Court directed opposite party No. 2 to give the petitioners further opportunity to produce materials to satisfy that the travel had actually been make and dispose of the matter. It is alleged that pursuant to the direction of this Court, as aforesaid, opposite party No. 2 issued a notice on 103-83 requiring the petitioners to produce materials to satisfy ham that the journeys claimed had actually been undertaken. In reply, the petitioners stated that they had undertaken the journeys and evidence had been produced and they should be informed if the authority required any further evidence. On May 13, 1983, opposite party No. 2 rejected the claims and directed recovery of the amounts advanced from the salary of the petitioners.

(3.) Petitioners have challenged the rejection of their claims and the direction ior recovery, inter alia, on the following grounds : (a) having regard to the nature of the controversy, the decision was of a quasi-judicial nature, (b) the petitioners had complied with such requirements as contemplated by the rules and the instructions, (c) reaction of their claims and the direction for recovery was based on assumptions and surmises and (d) the decision is contrary to rules and instructions.