Item 51/C-6 O.A. No.1878/2024 Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 1878/2024 This the 17th day of March, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. B. Anand, Member(A)

Mr. Nav Ratan S/o Late Sh. Khacheru Singh R/o A-120, Sector-22, NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, Retired Employee of ERTL(N)

(Through Mr. Nav Ratan)

…. Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Nav Ratan Applicant in person)

Versus

1. Union of India Through Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex, New Delhi-110003 (Through Nominated Counsel)

2. Director, Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (North), STQC Directorate, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, S-Block, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II -110020.

…. Respondents By Advocate : Mr. Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak)

Prash Prashant Kumar ORDER (ORAL)

1. This Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief(s)

“(i) Allow the present application in favour of application and against respondents.

(ii) Award reimbursement of LTC claim settlement (transportation charge) as per the existing 2017 rules as per which the claims of other officials were settled when the said bill was raised which is to calculated at the rate of Rs. 14,630/- instead of Rs. 4460/- per adult with the interest rate of 18% in the interest of justice.

(iii) Pass any other order/direction in favour of the applicant and against the respondent which the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the present circumstances of the case.”

2. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was Ex-Electronics Regional Test Laboratory (ERTL) officer. During the year 2016 he took the LTC advance of Rs. 63,000/- and visited Lakshadweep along with his spouse. He prepared LTC bill and submitted the claim to the respondents on 21.11.2016. The respondents after due verification of the bill submitted the same to the Pay and Accounts Officer for passing the same. The latter returned the bill raising the objection that LTC package should not be claimed. The respondents who had by then allowed the claim of the applicant and paid him the entire amount of Rs. 63,000/-, in the first instance, decided to advise the applicant to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 22,044/- as guided by the PAO. The applicant who is appearing as party in person today before me, drew my attention to the information obtained by him through an Prash Prashant Kumar application under the Rights to Information Act wherein total 08 names including that of the applicant are shown in the reply to the RTI request of the applicant dated 12.08.2019 wherein, out of the 08 names figuring in that reply except the name of Mr. Ravratan who is the applicant herein, all the remaining persons have been paid Rs. 14,000/- plus taxes whereas the applicant has been sanctioned only Rs. 4,460/. The applicant states that 30 people from various departments of Govt. Of India who travelled to Lakshadweep under LTC, through information received under RTI, he has found out that employees figuring against Serial No. 1 to 10 of Annexure A-1 are reimbursed as under:-

Prash Prashant Kumar

9	Vikaskumar Patel	11.11.2016	26125	14630
10	Pulsay Avinash Ravindra	25.11.2016	26125	14630

All of them have been reimbursed @Rs. 14,630/- towards package for their travel between Kochi to Lakshadweep.

3. The learned counsel for applicant also submits a certificate from the Society for Promotion of Nature Tourism and Sports (SPORTS) dated 18.11.2016 wherein they have clearly stated that the transportation charges of Rs.

14,000/- was incurred by the applicant as well per person.

4. The learned counsel for respondents, referring to the counter objecting to the contentions of the applicant, states that SPORTS was not an approved mode of transport LTC purposes during 2016 when the applicant undertook journey to Lakshadweep. It was only because the applicant was retiring on 31.08.2017, in order to avoid delay, the claim was se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document