Radhey Sharma & Ors. vs Dtc
2013 Latest Caselaw 2169 Del

$~15
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                       Date of Decision: May 09, 2013
+                                W.P.(C) 3017/2013
      RADHEY SHARMA & ORS.                     ..... Petitioners
              Represented by: Mr.Ravinder S.Garia, Advocate

                                        versus

      DTC                                                ..... Respondent
                    Represented by:     Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate with
                                        Ms.Latika Chaudhary, Advocate

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

CM No.5711/2013

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

W.P.(C) No.3017/2013

1. We have before us standing four writ petitioners, all employees of Delhi Transport Corporation. Three of the four petitioners hold a Group 'C' post and one holds a Group 'D' post. Ramesh Kumar Solanki works as a Peon; Radhey Shyam works as a Ticket Collector and Surjeet Singh as also Prakash Chand work as Assistant Fitters.

2. The address of the four in the memo of parties tells us that they reside in unauthorized slum colonies, and what would have been the most joyous day of their life, turned out to be a nightmare.

3. With a view to promote tourism in the North-East region and in Kashmere, the Government of India had a Leave Travel Concession Policy

which was extended to authorizing travel by air to even Group 'C' and Group 'D' employees and the scheme envisaged travel by economy class by air to the North-East region and Kashmere at rates prescribed by the airlines.

4. What had started happening was that the airlines in collaboration with hoteliers, through the travel agents acting as agents for both, started offering packages and unless one was careful vis-a-vis the air travel component, serious repercussions could follow when reimbursement claims were made after availing LTC.

5. For the first time in their lives, the four writ petitioners spent joyous moments with their wives and children; all travelling by air to Srinagar. The carrier was Go-Air.

6. The petitioners submitted the air tickets while seeking reimbursement and regretfully for them the entire package cost was reflected as the price of the ticket. After verifying the claims and paying the amount, it surfaced that many more had likewise travelled to Srinagar. Investigation carried out revealed that the entire package cost was reflected as the ticket cost. After issuing show cause notices and considering the response of the petitioners the excess amounts were directed to be recovered with interest @ 2% per month, a challenge made thereto by the writ petitioners before the Central Administrative Tribunal has failed.

7. Not only the challenge failed but the Tribunal observed that the department may initiate disciplinary action against the petitioners.

8. After attempting to argue on merits but faced with the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal in para 8 and 9 of the impugned decision dated December 21, 2012, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the possibility of the petitioners, who come from humble socio-economic background, being misled by the travel agent cannot be ruled out and would

thus beseech that the petitioners should not be worst of than they were before they approached the Tribunal. Learned counsel urges that the department was satisfied to recover the excess amount paid but the observations of the Tribunal that the department may initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners is likely to result in departmental proceedings being initiated and thus prays for mercy.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent who appears on the advance copy of the writ petition being served states that she has been instructed to inform the Court that keeping in view the observations made by the Tribunal the department has decided to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioners.

10. Since the petitioners have agreed to come clean and considering the socio-economic weak background from which the petitioners come and this being the first LTC they claimed for travelling by air i.e. had no idea as to how travel agents have to bill separately for boarding and lodging and travelling by air, we are of the opinion that the agony of the petitioners should be brought to an end by disposing of the writ petition maintaining the action of the respondent to recover the excess amount of LTC paid to the petitioners but striking off the observations of the Tribunal that the petitioners would be liable to be proceeded against for a departmental action. Further, levy of interest @ 2% per month on the excess amount paid is in our estimation excessive. Every day, whenever the Government or its department are saddled with financial liabilities they pray that interest should be restricted to 6% per annum and we find that in sync with the current regime of interests on deposits, courts are directing interest to be paid at 9% per annum. Thus, a correction has to be made with reference to the rate of interest which petitioners would pay to DTC.

11. The petition stands disposed of reducing the interest rate liable to be paid by the petitioners to DTC on the excess amount of LTC paid, from 2% per month to 9% simple interest per annum and the observations of the Tribunal that the petitioners were liable to be proceeded against a departmental action are struck off.

12. No costs.

CM N o.5700/2013 Since the writ petition stands disposed of, instant application seeking ad-interim relief stands disposed of as infructuous.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(V. KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE MAY 09, 2013 mamta