SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 15423

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K Prabhakar – Appellant
Versus
M/o Defence – Respondent
O.A./637/2024



CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH O.A. No.310/00637 of 2024 DATED TUES DAY, THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE CORAM :

HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)

K. PRABHAKAR (M/. 36 Yrs), CIVILIAN MOTOR DRIVER, S/o. G. Kamalakanniah, Having Residence Act, No. 2294, 97th Street, 4th Block, Avadi, TNHB, Avadi, Chennai-600054. ..........Applicant (Advocate: Ms. M. Lavanya)

Vs.

1. Union of India, Ministry of Defence Rep. By Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110011;

2. The Controller of Defence Accounts, "T" Section, No. 618, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai 600018;

3. The Commandant, Estt. Section, OD AVADI, Chennai 600055;

4. The Local Audit Officer (STORES), Ordnance Depot, Avadi, Chennai 600055. …...Respondents (Advocate: Mr. K. Rajendran, Sr. CGSC)

O R D E R (Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

Applicant has filed this OA seeking to quash the impugned speaking order dated 16/04/2024 passed by the 3rd respondent in compliance of the order dated

30/01/2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 310/384/2023.

2. The case of the applicant is that he was recruited on 07/04/2016 as Civilian Motor Driver (OG) in Group C post in Internal Transport Branch, Ordnance Depot, Avadi, Chennai 600 055 and has served over 7 years with unblemished records. Applicant had opted to avail LTC - All India in 2020 within the block of 4 years of the date of his joining the service and submitted requisite documents for travelling to Andaman and Nicobar Island along-with his family. However, in view of the DoP&T II Order No. NIP/34/2020 dated 16/03/2020, the journey was cancelled on account of the prevailing pandemic Covid-19. Hence the cancellation of LTC - All India was not at the option of applicant but due to the prevailing pandemic. He had duly informed the authorities of the said cancellation and non-availing of earned leave and no reimbursement or any other advance was availed by the applicant.

3. In the year 2022, applicant learnt about the relaxation being granted by the Government for availing the Leave Travel Concession (LTC All India) on the ground of cancellation of journey effected in the block year 2018-2021. Accordingly, applicant sought permission of 3rd respondent and after duly complying with all the requisite and necessary procedural formalities, applicant was granted permission to avail the Leave Travel Concession (LTC All India) to visit Srinagar for a period of 6 days from 23/05/2022 to 28/05/2022 for self, wife, son and his dependant mother for the block year 2018-2021. Permission for 10 days’ Leave for availing Leave Travel Concession -All India was also duly approved by the 4th Respondent [Local Audit Officer (Stores)] and was entered in his Service Register. Applicant was also granted 10 days’ encashment of Earned Leave along with Leave Travel Concession in terms of Govt. of India Department Letter No. F. No. 31011/4/2008/Est(A) dated 23/09/2008. After completing journey, applicant had submitted the receipts and necessary particulars for reimbursement of the Leave Travel Concession (LTC All India) availed by him and the Controller of Defence Accounts had reimbursed the remaining amount.

th

4. However, the 4 respondent forwarded a letter No.LA/II/SB/13 dated 21/01/2023 to the 3rd respondent stating that the applicant who is a fresh recruit has availed LTC - All India in the Sixth Occasion which is not in order as per LTC Rules and recommended to take action to recover the amount paid on account of LTC and 10 days LTC leave encashment. The applicant was served with a copy of the said audit objections for recovery of the reimbursement of LTC All India. Applicant gave a representation dated 06/02/2023 requesting to consider the period of relaxation granted owing to the pandemic and not to deduct the amount reimbursed by the Controller of Defence Accounts. However, it was verbally informed that his representation is rejected by the 4th respondent stating that the said LTC All India and Leave Encashment are not i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top