A retired government employee may only claim travel allowances from their declared hometown or post-retirement residence as specified in departmental rules, necessitating adherence to relevant guidelines.

ORDER :

(V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.)

These two RPs No.88/2022 and 89/2022 have been filed by the petitioner seeking review of order dated 04.02.2020 passed by this Court in WPs No.35350/2019 and 20420/2019.

2. The petitioner herein-Sri. T.C.Gupta was the respondent in the aforesaid two writ petitions. The aforesaid two writ petitions were filed by the Union of India and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka and Goa Region, impugning the common order dated 30.08.2018 passed in Original Applications No.170/00431 and 170/00432 of 2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (‘the Tribunal’ for short). The two applications were filed by the review petitioner Sri. Gupta, who retired as a Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru on 30.09.2014. The said applications pertain to the dispute with reference to non-payment of amount for having performed journey from Bengaluru to Jaipur as well as non-payment of air fare. In the first application, the grievance of respondent is that the journey expenses incurred by him for attending the departmental inquiry proceedings initiated against him conducted at Jaipur have not been reimbursed. Hence, he is entitled to recover the same with interest.

3. In the second application, his grievance was that when he has travelled between Bengaluru and Jaipur, during the period when inquiry was conducted, as the journey which he has undertaken in the airlines other than Air India/Indian Airlines, is not considered due to technical objection that he has not secured relaxation of journey condition which insisted that the journey should be in Air India/Indian Airlines. In other words, failure to seek exemption to travel in some other airlines atleast seven days in advance before taking up such journey is pre-requisite for being reimbursed the expenses. The said two applications were allowed by the Tribunal holding that Sri. Gupta, prior to his retirement, had filed Form No.5 on 06.06.2014 indicating that his permanent place of residence subsequent to his retirement shall be Benglauru, as such, he is entitled for journey expenses from Bengaluru to Jaipur and back for attending the departmental inquiry, which was initiated against him. So far as the prayer in the second application is concerned, the Tribunal took a liberal view that the point in dispute is only with reference to securing prior permission for taking up journey in any airlines other than the national carrier viz., Air India/Indian Airlines, which is considered for several other persons, therefore non-seeking of permission by itself would not disentitle him to recover the charges incurred by him for journey from Bengaluru to Jaipur and back.

4. The case of the Union of India/Prl. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax in the writ petitions was that, T.C.Gupta had indicated in the particulars furnished by him that his hometown is Jodhpur. Prior to his retirement, he exercised option to show where he would like to stay after retirement by filing Form No.5 on 06.06.2014 by indicating that he would be staying in Bengaluru permanently.

5. This Court, while allowing the writ petitions, has in paragraphs No.5 to 10, stated as under:

“5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the normal practice is to hold the inquiry proceedings closest to the place where the retired employee would be residing if the departmental inquiry continues even after his retirement. Accordingly, it is in consultation with the respondent T.C.Gupta the place of inquiry is fixed at Jaipur as it is closer to his home town Jodhpur. The same is also supported by the fact that