UNION OF INDIA Vs. S S BAWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India has filed this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.1.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal) in OA No.585- CH of 2005. Applicant-Respondent no.1 filed the aforesaid OA challenging the order dated 20.5.2005 passed by the petitioners-Union of India rejecting his claim for reimbursement of the Leave Travel Concession (hereinafter referred to as "the LTC").

(2.) It was not disputed before the Tribunal nor is it disputed before us that applicant-respondent no.1 had proceeded on duly sanctioned LTC from 12.1.2004 to 23.1.2004. The journey was to commence from Chandigarh and was to end at Port Blair. Respondent no.1 had a number of options to reach Port Blair from Chandigarh. Respondent no.1 claims that he was constrained to travel by Jet Airlines as the arrangement to travel by rail did not fructify. After visiting Port Blair alongwith his family, respondent no.1 submitted the LTC claim. Prior to proceeding on LTC, respondent no.1 had been given LTC advance in the sum of Rs.44,000/-. The entire expenses for travel had been assessed at Rs.49,350/-. The petitioners i.e. the Union of India rejected the claim of the respondent no.1 and directed recovery of Rs.45,000/-.The applicant-respondent no.1 was informed that he is not entitled to travel by Air in view of the provisions contained in Rule 12 (3) of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the LTC Rules"). He was informed that under the aforesaid Rule, a Government Servant may travel by Air between places not connected by road or where an alternative mode of travel is either not available or is very expensive. He was further informed that where a government servant performs the journey by Air between places connected by Rail, his reimbursement may be restricted to the fare of the entitled class by Rail, other than Rajdhani/Shatabadi Express. Even these provisions are not applicable in respect of journeys undertaken by Private Airlines. On the rejection of his claim, respondent no.1 again submitted his claim by drawing the attention of the authority to Rule 18 of the LTC Rules which provides for relaxation by the competent authority if the department is satisfied that operation of any of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case.

(3.) On the asking of the Department, respondent no.1 also provided a certificate from Indian Airlines regarding non-availability of the seat during those particular days. Inspite of the aforesaid fact, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by order dated 20.5.2005.