The main legal principle established in the judgment is that the reimbursement of LTC claims should be regulated strictly in accordance with the rules, and recoveries by the employers could be impermissible in law in certain situations, considering equity, hardship, and public interest.

V.Kameswar Rao, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition, by 57 petitioners, is primarily to the e-mail dated October 9, 2014 whereby, the respondent No. 1 has called upon the petitioners herein to comply with the letters issued earlier for recovery of the amount paid for the LTC availed by the petitioners and the petitioners’ representation was accordingly rejected. The details of the LTC availed period and the recoveries sought are given in a chart by the petitioners in annexure P-19.

2. Mr. R.K. Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondent No. 1 National Informatics Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘NICSI’) came into existence on March 3, 1998 as a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioners were the regular employees of the National Informatics Centre (NIC) and were sent to the NICSI respondent No. 1 company on deputation. According to him, the terms of appointment, issued to the petitioners inter-alia, stipulated that for availing Leave Travel Concession, the petitioners would be governed by the Rules of the NICSI, respondent No. 1, subject to the petitioners having not availed the concession during the particular block of year before deputation. It is also his submission that the concession shall not, at any time, be inferior to that of the petitioners’ entitlement in their parent organization. According to him, the petitioners availed the concession on various dates between the period 2006-2014. The claims of the petitioners were settled in accordance with the applicable Rules. As per the Rules of the respondent No. 1 company framed in the year 2006, with regard to LTC, stipulated that “the concession will be admissible to all employees of NICSI as per the Rules applicable in NIC”. He would also state, office order dated October 13, 2010, by which the respondent No. 1 conveyed the decision of its Board of Directors modifying the Rule with regard to LTC, inter-alia stipulated an employee of the respondent No. 1 company can visit Foreign Country in lieu of “anywhere in India as per the eligibility. The entitlement of Foreign LTC shall be equal to the fartherest point in India from the Headquarter of the concerned officer or actual expense incurred in foreign travel, whichever is less”. In other words, it is his submission that by this order, the respondent No. 1 company had permitted its employees to avail concession for foreign travel. He states, in view of this, many of the employees had actually availed the LTC for foreign trips. Before travelling abroad, undertakings were taken from the concerned officers to the extent that in the eventuality, they are granted leave for a particular period to visit the foreign Country (name of the foreign country), they would undertake not to extend their leave under any circumstances and report for duty on expiry of the leave period. He would also state that everything was in order inasmuch as the Comptroller & Auditor General for the years ending March 31, 2011 and March 31, 2012 did not find any objection with respect to LTC concessions. According to him, the claims of the some employees who undertook foreign trips were settled in terms of the said order. He would state that there was nothing wrong with the availing of the LTC facility. It appears an audit report dated July 2, 2014 from the Post and Telecommunication Audit Office, Delhi was received by the respondent No. 1 wherein certain objections were raised with regard to (i) irregular amendment to LTC rules and payment of Rs. 1.24 crore on account of LTC claims for visiting abroad; (ii) irregular payment of Rs. 65.50 lacs on account of LTC claims for travel within India. He would state that an appropriate reply was sent by the respondent No. 1 to the Auditors justifying LTC reimbursement to the petitioners. According to him, notices dated July 31, 2014 were issued to the petitioners for recovery of the reimbursement made for availing the