Delhi High Court
Tilak Raj Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 18 February, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~79
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 772/2018
TILAK RAJ SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anju Gupta with
Mr. Bhuvan Goel and Mr. Shubham Grover,
Advs for R-1, 2 & 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 18.02.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This review petition seeks review of the judgment dated 17
January 2025 passed by us whereby we have dismissed WP (C)
772/2018.
2. The issue in the writ petition pertained to LTC1 availed by the
review petitioner, who was the petitioner in the writ petition. The LTC
was originally sought for travel to Trivandrum, which was
subsequently changed to Goa, via Mumbai. The petitioner decided,
Leave Travel Concession
midway, to change his destination certain hillstations in Uttarakhand.
3. In our judgment, we have taken note of the relevant instructions
which unmistakably require prior permission of the competent
authority to be taken in the event of change of destination midway. It
is only where unavoidable circumstances exist, as would make it
impossible to take such prior permission, that change of LTC can be
granted even if there is change of destination.
4. The petitioner, who appears in person submits that he had to
change his destination owing to unavoidable circumstances. We had
noted, in our judgment, that, in the representation made by him on 14
June 2013, seeking LTC, the only ground taken was that. As the route
to Goa was very long, the petitioner had decided to change his
destination to places in Uttarakhand, as already noted.
5. We have opined that this could not constitute "unavoidable
circumstances", as would justify dispensation with the requirement of
prior permission before changing destination.
6. It is on this basis that we have upheld the decision of the
Central Administrative Tribunal to reject the petitioner's Original
Application.
7. The petitioner, who appears in person, submits that, if the
respondents was inclined to extend the petitioner's application for
LTC, it ought to have been done within ten days instead of making the
petitioner wait for one and a half years. He further submits that there
has been a history of victimization of the petitioner by the
respondents, owing to which the petitioner has sought to file various
cases against the respondents, including a petition for compensation
pending in Patiala House Court.
8. He further submits that the delay in deciding the petitioner's
representation of LTC for one and a half years was only because the
respondents wanted to blackmail the petitioner.
9. These are all submissions which cannot be examined by us in
exercise of writ jurisdiction. Besides, they do not constitute, by any
stretch of imagination, grounds for review of our judgment, which has
been passed strictly in terms of the applicable policy.
10. No case for review exists. The review petition is dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 18, 2025
an
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
