Delhi High Court
Shiv Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India & Ors. on 4 December, 2020
$~VC-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 4th December, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 5635/2020
SHIV KUMAR PANDEY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Mr.
Saurabh and Mr. R.N. Mishra,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
W.P.(C) 5635/2020, CM APPL.20406/2020 (for ad-interim stay)
1. On 26th August, 2020, when this petition first came up for
admission, inter alia the following order was passed: -
"3. The petitioner, a Deputy Commandant in the
respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), has
filed this petition impugning the decision of the respondents
CISF of deduction, in 20 installments, from the salary of the
petitioner, of Leave Travel Concession (LTC) of about
Rs.2.15 lakhs claimed by the respondents CISF to have been
wrongfully disbursed to the petitioner, in contravention of
the Rules.
4. Deduction w.e.f. December, 2019 has already
commenced from the salary of the petitioner and the
representation of the petitioner forwarded to the Ministry of
Home Affairs also stands rejected.
5. The petitioner, in the grounds pleaded in the petition,
has only urged the ground of the respondents CISF, after
having disbursed the LTC, being not entitled to claim refund
of the same. However there is no merit in the said ground
inasmuch as disbursement of LTC is governed by the
statutory rules and there is no estoppel against the Statute.
6. However what intrigues us is, the reason given for the
claim for refund and in the rejection of the representation. It
is stated that the petitioner was not entitled to the LTC in
the relevant year i.e., 2016, in which it was claimed and
disbursed.
7. It is not in dispute that the LTC entitlement is for a
block of four years. The counsel for the petitioner, on
enquiry states that the relevant block of four years was 2014
to 2017. From the communications aforesaid of the
respondents CISF, it appears that according to the
respondents CISF, LTC was due to the petitioner in the year
2017 and not in the year 2016. The counsel for the
petitioner has contended that though the petitioner applied
for LTC in 2017 also, but the same was not disbursed.
8. Unless there is an express provision to the contrary,
we are of the prima facie opinion that once LTC is available
in a block of four years, it matters not whether it is claimed
in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th year, as long as there is no over-
withdrawal in the block of four years.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has not filed before this
Court the relevant Rules/O.M. wherefrom the controversy
could have been adjudicated.
10. The counsel for the respondents CISF also, though
appearing on advance notice, states that he will have to
obtain instructions."
and notice of the petition issued and till further orders, further
deductions being made from the salary of the petitioner were stayed.
2. The respondents Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) have
filed a counter affidavit and in which the respondents CISF, in paragraphs
1 to 6 of the 'Brief background of the case', have stated as under: -
"1. That Shri Shiv Kumar Pandey, Deputy Commandant,
was appointed as Assistant Commandant in Central
Industrial Security Force on 18.04.2009. Shri Shiv Kumar
Pandey, Deputy Commandant joined CISF Unit, NSCBI
Airport Kolkata on 01.06.2015 from CISF Unit, NHPCL
Subansiri. The Officer had applied & availed All India
Leave Travel Concession for the year 2016 for self, wife,
son & daughter from ASG Kolkata to Alleppy, Kerala &
back and his parents (father & mother) availed from ASG
Kolkata to Kanyakumari & back on the 7th occasion vide
CISF Unit NSCBI Airport Kolkata, Service Order Part.II
No.426/2016 dated 17.12.2016 (Annexure-R-1/2) & Part.II
No.298/2016 dated 14.09.2016 (Annexure-R-1/3).
2. That the audit team of Internal Audit Wing (Ministry of
Home Affairs) raised an observation that Shri Shiv Kumar
Pandey, Deputy Commandant was not entitled to avail All
India Leave Travel Concession in the year 2016 and the
expenditure incurred for avail LTC during the year 2016
should be recovered from Shri Shiv Kumar Pandey, Deputy
Commandant and deposited in Government accounts
through challan.
3. That the Department of Personnel & Training Office
Memorandum dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure-R-1/4)
envisages that the Fresh recruits to Central Government
are allowed to travel to their home town along with their
families on three occasions in a block of four years and to
any place in India on the fourth occasion. This facility
shall be available to the Government officers only for the
first two blocks of four years applicable after joining the
Government for the first time. The blocks of 4 years shall
apply with reference to the initial date of joining the
Government even though the employee changes the job
within Government subsequently. The existing blocks will
remain the same but the entitlements of the new recruit will
be different in the first eight years of service. All other
provisions concerning frequency of travel under LTC
(Leave Travel Concession) are retained.
4. That as per above guidelines, the entitlement of Shri
Shiv Kumar Pandey, Deputy Commandant for Home
Town/All India Leave Travel Concession would be as
under:-
From TO Year of Type of LTC Block of
LTC LTC
18.04.09 17.04.10 One year NIL
service
18.04.10 31.12.10 1st Year Home Town
01.01.11 31.12.11 2nd Year Home Town
1st Block
01.01.12 31.12.12 3rd Year Home Town
01.01.13 31.12.13 4th Year Anywhere
01.01.14 31.12.14 5th Year Home Town
01.01.15 31.12.15 6th Year Home Town
2nd Block
01.01.16 31.12.16 7th Year Home Town
01.01.17 31.12.17 8th Year Anywhere
01.01.18 31.12.21 Normal Block Year 2018-21 is entitled
5. That The Department of Personnel & Training have
further clarified as Frequently Asked Questions with
illustration No. 1,2,3 & 4 vide letter No.31011/7/2013-
Estt(A-IV) dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure-R-1/5) and as per
Department of Personnel & Training (Establishment A-IV)
Frequently Asked Questions (Annexure-R1/-6), it is
clarified that a fresh recruit Govt. Servant can avail All
India Leave Travel Concession only on 4th occasion of the
block and not at random. In the instant case, Shri Shiv
Kumar Pandey, Deputy Commandant has availed Leave
Travel Concession to any place in India in the year 2016
which was his 3rd occasion. Thus, the officer was entitled
to avail Home Town LTC in the year 2016 whereas the
officer availed All India LTC.
6. That on the basis of audit observation raised by the
Internal Audit Wing(MHA), CISF Unit ASG NSCBIA
Kolkata requested to CISF Unit IOC, Haldia vide Letter
No.F-12016/CISF/NSCBIA(K)/TA-DA/Accts/ 2018/ 4093
dated 30.05.2018 (Annexure-R-1/7) and letter of even
No.F-12016/CISF/ NSCBIA(K)/TA-DA/Accts/2018/6114
dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure-R-1/8) that a sum of
Rs.2,15,218/- incurred towards claim and paid to Shri Shiv
Kumar Pandey, Deputy Commandant may be recovered
from the officer and deposited to Government Account
through challan."
Else, in the affidavit neither it has been stated that the petitioner, in the
block of four years claimed All India Leave Travel Concession (LTC)
twice nor any explanation for the insistence on availing of the All India
LTC only after availing the three LTCs to the Home-town, is pleaded.
3. We otherwise are unable to fathom any reason or logic in the
insistence on availing of the "All India LTC" or "anywhere LTC" only in
the 4th and the 8th year of the first block of eight years of service and not
in any of the other years of each block of the first four years of service.
4. On enquiry being made from the counsel for the respondents CISF,
the counsel for the respondents CISF states that the respondents CISF
have acted in accordance with the Rule and the petitioner has not
challenged the Rule and thus the validity of the Rule cannot be gone into.
5. Undoubtedly so; however, in the facts of the present case, the
respondents CISF also sanctioned the All India LTC to the petitioner in
the 3rd year of the first block of four years and disbursed the amount and
allowed the petitioner to avail of the same and it thus cannot be said that
the error is only on the part of the petitioner. The error is equally on the
part of the respondents CISF also and the respondents CISF also realized
the mistake only on an audit objection being raised.
6. We thus dispose of this petition, by directing the respondents CISF,
to re-consider the Rule aforesaid; and, by otherwise quashing the demand
impugned in this petition against the petitioner and enforcement thereof
by recovery from the emoluments of the petitioner and direct the
respondents CISF to, within 60 days of today, refund to the petitioner
whatever has already been deducted on the said account from his
emoluments, failing which, after 60 days, the petitioner shall also be
entitled to interest thereon @ 8% per annum.
7. The petition is disposed of.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
ASHA MENON, J.
DECEMBER 04, 2020/s
