CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Original Application No. 060/00872/2025 Pronounced on: 05.12.2025 Reserved on: 01.12.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

----

PARSHOTAM LAL ARORA, Resident of #267, 39-West Society, Sector- 122, S.A.S Nagar (Mohali) working as S.W. (E), Headquarter D-2, Radio Colony, Sector-42-A, Chandigarh ... Applicant By Advocate: Applicant in person Versus

1. UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF I&B, PRASAR BHARATI, THROUGH CHIEF ENGINEER, CIVIL CONSTRUCITION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, 5th FLOOR, SOOCHNA BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-

110003

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), CIVIL, CONSTRUCITION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, 5th FLOOR, SOOCHNA BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD DELHI-110003 NEW Delhi-

110003.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL)-I, D.D.O CIVIL CONSTRUCITION WING, ALL INDIA RADIO, 5^th FLOOR, SOOCHNA BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003 Digitally signed by MAMTA ... .Respondents WADHWA By Advocate: Mr. Sahil Batra

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the applicant seeking directions to the respondents to consider his claim and to pay the full amount as deducted from the salary for the month of July 2025 immediately as the LTC advance of Rs. 20,000/- along with 10 days leave encashment Rs.58,671/-

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 23.10.2024 the applicant was sanctioned LTC advance along with ten days’ leave encashment for a visit to Srinagar (J&K) and return to Chandigarh with his wife, vide letter dated 23.10.2024. Pursuant to this sanction, the applicant booked air tickets online on 29.10.2024 from the Indigo Airlines website and gave prior intimation to respondent No. 2 through E-Office as well as his official Prasar Bharati e-mail. According to the applicant, respondent No. 2 raised no objection when the tickets were forwarded, and in the absence of any objection, the applicant undertook the journey accordingly.

3. The applicant performed the journey to Srinagar along with his wife and after completion of the journey, he submitted the LTC claim on 13.11.2024 through E-Office and e-mail. The applicant stated that he made repeated requests to the concerned officials and to respondent No. 2 for early settlement of the LTC claim, but no action was taken. He later sent communications dated 16.04.2025 through E-Office and 14.05.2025 through official e-mail, again seeking settlement of his claim. He further stated that instead of processing the claim, respondent No. 2 got the entire amount of Rs. 58,671, including interest at 9.1%, deducted from his salary through the DDO, respondent No. 3, on 31.07.2025.

4. The applicant contended that the rejection of his LTC claim and the subsequent recovery of Rs. 58,671 with interest were arbitrary and unjustified. He submitted that he had booked the air tickets directly from the airline website and had given prior intimation to respondent No. 2 before undertaking the journey, and no objection was raised at that stage. He further contended that his claim was genuine and was covered by the DoPT Circular dated 29.08.2022, which permitted consideration of such claims where the genuineness of the journey was established. According to the applicant, the respondents ought to have processed and settled his claim instead of directing recovery, and therefore the impugned action deserved to be set aside.

5. The respondents filed a written statement contesting the claim of the applicant. They stated that the Original Application was misconceived and not maintainable, as the impugned order dated 25.06.2025 has been issued strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and the DoPT O.M. dated 29.08.2022. They submitted that the applicant’s LTC claim of ₹53,544 for the journey from Chandigarh to Srinagar under the block year 2022-23 (extended to 2024) was rejected because he purchased air tickets dire