$~26 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 772/2018 TILAK RAJ SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Aarati Mahajan Shedha, Adv. with Ms. Manushi Prajapati, Adv.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Anju Gupta and Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Advs. for R-1, 2 & 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL)

% 17.01.2025 AJAY DIGPAUL, J.

1. The relevant facts that emerged from the pleadings are as follows:

The petitioner, who is a person with disability, was selected as Upper Division Clerk in the Department of Income Tax in the Divyangjan quota. In July 2012, the petitioner made a declaration under Rule 6 of the Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988, [“LTC Rules”, hereinafter] for going to Trivandrum. On 17.08.2012, under Rule 15(i) of LTC Rules an advance of Rs. 18,000/- and 10 days leave encashment of Rs. 9339/- was paid to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner vide letter dated 04.04.2013 sought a change in destination to Goa via Bombay and by road on car instead of train due Signature Not Verified

Signed By:MEENU WP(C) 772/2018 Page 1 of 8

to his physical disability. The request for change in destination and mode of travel was considered under Rule 6 and 15 of the LTC Rules. 3. A conditional permission dated 15.04.2013 was granted to the petitioner to change his destination and in mode of travel by car, but subject to the condition that the reimbursement for the said travel would be limited to the cost of the shortest train route and would not exceed that amount. The petitioner was also directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 18,000/- which was given to him on 17.08.2012, as he failed to travel within 30 days from the date of receipt of advance.

4. The petitioner, vide his letter dated 17.04.2013, had requested that the advance may be adjusted towards his final bills, which may be deposited after his return from Goa.

5. The petitioner vide letter dated 14.06.2013, which was regarding the change of destination, informed the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut, respondent no. 3 that he started his journey for Goa via Bombay by road along with his family but when he reached around Mathura, it was felt that the journey to Goa by road would be too long. The letter read thus:

“To, The C.I.T Receiving Date: 14-06-2013 Meerut, Regarding – Change of Destination in LTC Rule 03.06 to 12.06.13 Respected madam, I availed the facility of LTC for 2010-13 and informed for Bombay and Goa by car but while proceeding towards that around Mathura, I and my family (my wife and three children) who were going to the Bombay and Goa decided that the route is very long around 4500 km. We cannot do we make our mind to change to Pouri, Lansdowne, Dalhousie, Amritsar to Meerut.

Above change of destination was decided in real condition. Please allow me to change the destination; me and my family (wife and three Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU WP(C) 772/2018 Page 2 of 8 children) went for the change of Destination. Please allow me the change of destination, I will be very grateful.

Date- 13.06.13 Enc-Rule Photocopy yours faithfully (O.S) T.R.O (1-2) Tilak Raj Singh”

6. Consequently, petitioner decided to change his destination from Goa to Pauri, Lansdowne and Amritsar. The petitioner claimed this change in destination was beyond his control and therefore, sought permission to change his destination.

7. The respondent no. 3, in response to the letter dated 14.06.2013, informed the petitioner vide their letter dated 30.08.2013 that the decision on his letter would be taken only after the compliance of the directions given vide letter dated 15.04.2013 is made, wherein he was asked to refund the advance made towards the travel expenses which was a sum of Rs. 18,000/- along with the interest of Rs. 3643/-.

8. Since there was no response from the petitioner, therefore, a fresh reminder vide letter dated 25.10.2013 was sent to the petitioner to comply with the directions dated 1