(Reserved on 05.02.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH (Circuit Bench at Indore)

Jabalpur, this the 20th day of February, 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER Original Application No. 710 of 2019 Anil Barjatiya, More than age 63 years, S/o Shri D.C. Barjatiya, Retired Dy. CCA Office of C.C.A, M.P. Telecom Circle, Bhopal (MP), residing at C/o Shri Abhishek Barjatiya, Mishra Palace Hotel Compound, Opposite Balaji Gas Agency, Harda (MP) - 461331.

-Applicant Advocate for the applicant: The applicant in-person V e r s u s

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry Communication and I.T, Department of Telecommunications, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110001.

2. Shri Shankar Lalji Bhalotiya, then CCA, MP at present General Manager (Finance), O/o the CPMG, Dak Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) -

462017.

3. Shri Satish Kumarji, then Jt. CCA, O/o CCA, now CCA, M.P Telecom Circle, Sanchar Bhawan, Bhopal (MP) – 462015.

-Respondents Advocate for the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma O R D E R By : - Akhil Kumar Srivastava The applicant has filed the present original application being aggrieved by deduction from his salary as recovery against TA. The Rs. 4952/- in February 2010 and Rs. 11889/- in March 2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid recovery, the applicant submitted application dated 30.02.2013 seeking detail reasons for the said recovery. The applicant also filed representations dated 01.06.2013, 08.01.2014, 01.11.2016, 16.01.2017 and 04.04.2017 (Annexure A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9 respectively) but having received no response, he has filed the present original application.

2. Per contra, the respondents have contested the OA and filed reply. Referring to the contents of reply, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was granted an amount of Rs.55,290/- as TA advance for his various tours conducted by him during the period from 25.11.2008 to 27.07.2009 for which he submitted 18 TA bills mentioning therein that he had performed the journey on tour by his own scooter without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority despite the fact that he was specifically instructed to use public transport for the journey and did not submit any document in this regard. Referring to OM issued by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure bearing No. 19030/3/2008-E.TV Dated 23.09.2008, in case of road travel RAJU between places connected by rail, travel by any means of public train fare by the entitled class. Accordingly his TA claims was restricted to the sleeper class fare of railway journey. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the cash memos towards reimbursement of food bills were not in the spirit of orders dated 23.09.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the items shown in the food bills like GHEE, KAJU BADAM, CHAVYANPRAS, GLUCON-D and PARLE BISCUITS are though the food items but since they were not found to be in accordance with the spirit of rules on the subject, his claim for reimbursement for said items were rejected.

3. In rejoinder, the applicant has emphasized that while rejecting his claim for travelling on tour by his own scooter, the respondents overlooked the Sub Rule 'A of Rule 2 of OFFICE MEMORANDUM of Dated 23.09.2008 (Annexure RJ -1), according to the minimum Travel Entitlement of restriction for any employee is "First Class/AC III Tier/ AC Chair car by train" and there is no provision for entitlement of sleeper class. The applicant contended that during the period in between 25-11-2008 to 27-07-2009, his grade pay was Rs. 5400/- therefore, his travel entitlement was Economy Class by Air/AC II Tier class by train. Therefore, the RAJU of journey was unlawful, illegal and unjustified. The applicant further referred to Sub-Clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sub Rule 'D' of Rule 2 of OFFICE MEMORANDUM No. F. No. 19030/3/2008-ΕE. IV dated 23.08.2008 and submitted that he wa