Leave travel concession
kumarjainn
(Querist) 18 October 2014
This query is : Resolved
sir
An airline ticket was booked by non authorised agent to avail Leave Travel Concession (LTC) available to govt. employee in 2010 to visit kashmir by private airlines.At that time travel by private airline was allowed for visiting kashmir. The brokerage commission was not claimed. The reimbursement was received. Now it has been asked to return the amount as the ticket was booked by non authorised agent. what are the rules. is anybody competent to relax the rules.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 18 October 2014
not so simple matter as put by yu. whole papers need to be seen.
I hope this is not one of the cases reviewed after the LTC fraud has been referred to CBI.
contact any collegue well versed in LTC matter with entire papers.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 18 October 2014
Time barred 2010-2014; Limitation apply, so case is stale; I tax also not recoverable...
must see t&C of LTA;
mAJORITY EMPLOYEE PRODUCE FAKE TKT// CANCELL IT AFTER BOOKING & RECOVER LTA ; TO save I Tax / rebate/ claim travel exp, tax free
So rules are reasonable..
However, once sanctioned before 3 yrs cannot be cancelled ..
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 18 October 2014
It is not time barred.
It is recovery of excess paid amount.
If he has really drawn excess/inadmissible claim he still can face disciplinary action whether he refuds or not.
Even if the refund remain pending it will be recovered from his gratuity with penal interest after he retires or even if he dies.
I am giving following links
http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/ltc-fraud-cbi-cvc-seek-to-dig-up-more-dirt-on-nhai.html
http://www.dailypioneer.com/nation/ltc-fraud-cbi-cvc-seek-to-dig-up-more-dirt-on-nhai.html
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 18 October 2014
If the department is satisfied that there exist some irregularity in the claim, it can recover / initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee.
All the documents need to be seen for fruitful advice.
P. Venu
(Expert) 18 October 2014
Situation does not appear to be so alarming as it is made out to be.
It appears that you are a Central Government servant and hence CCS(LTC)Rules apply.
As you had traveled by air, there is no question of alleging a fake claim as it is mandatory and you would have submitted the boarding pass together with the claim. The controlling officer, it appears, had sanctioned the claim and you had received the reimbursement.
The present development could be that the PAO or some audit party has made some observation. The objection is only technical. Purchasing a ticket through a non-authorised agent is no ground for disallowing a genuine claim. You may request your head of office/controlling officer to clarify the matter to the audit.
No Service Rule is to be given effect in such a manner as it would cause hardship to a Government servant. LTC Rules contains provisions to make relaxation in appropriate cases.
18. Power to relax.-
Save as otherwise provided in these rules, where any Ministry or Department of the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of these rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, that Ministry or Department, as the case may be, may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exception and conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner:
Provided that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and Training.
Your case qualifies to be relaxed under the above cited Rule.
.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 18 October 2014
I have recently come across a vigilance case (major penalty) against an employee
Since the author has not given sufficient facts of the case I cannot visualise that whether the recovery is based by simple audit observation or the recovery comes from review post CBI investigation.
The Author has not even confirmed whether he is CG employee or state/psu/local body employee. So I do not want to visuslise on my own.
Purchasing of ticket through non-authroised agent [on blamer lauries and ATT are authorized agents] is a valid reason for denying the claim, in those cases where such purchase was essential.
rule 18 as shown by Mr Venu,just provides that the dptt may relax rules :-if
(i) deptt is satisfied about feasibility of relaxation
and (ii) if concurred by DOPT.
THE DEPTT IS ASKING REFUND SO IT THEY DO NOT FIND IT A CASE OF RELAXATION.
DOP hardly agrees.
relaxation clause is not enforceable right.
So let the author either state all material facts or
contact any colleague well versed in LTC matter with entire papers.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 18 October 2014
sir
thanks
It is only audit objection and they have asked to get the rules relaxed from ministry of finance.
P. Venu
(Expert) 18 October 2014
Obviously, the objection itself is casual! The relaxation needs to be done by the DoPT and not Ministry of Finance.
Perhaps, your HoD/Controlling Officer themselves can convince the audit that their objection is misconceived.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 18 October 2014
I reiterate
contact any colleague well versed in LTC matter with entire papers.
Firsts examine and satisfy your self as to whether at all relaxation is retired. It is quiet possible that the claim is correctly passed and audit may be making frivolous objection.
kumarjainn
(Querist) 18 October 2014
sir
thanks
the claim has already been reimbursed. the journey was actually performed.
the audit objection is that the tickets should have been booked by the two authorised agents balmer lauri etc. or through the website of airlines
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 19 October 2014
If it is only audit objection, you can overcome of it. The Department can take authorization from the appropriate authorities for allowing reimbursement of air-ticket booked by an agency other than approved one.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 19 October 2014
I am sorry.
The audit objection is not misconceived.
The audit objection is not causal.
The audit objection highlights violation of rules.
It is the requirement of the rules that the ticket should be purchased from these tow travel agents (none else) or from India Air lines directly.
Unless the MoF agrees to relax the rule the claim can be disallowed even if passed.
THE AUTHOR HAS NOT COME WITH VITAL FACTS AS TO WHETHER THE LTC UNDER UNDER ANY SCHEME AND WHETHER FARE REIMBURSED IS (OR IS NOT) MORE THAN INDIAN AIRLINES FARE ON THE SAME.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 19 October 2014
The objection for such purchase is that the un authorised agents add their commission to the tickets above the fare to an exorbitant extent hence the government made it a rule to purchase tickets through authorised agents only. Expert Mr. Sudhir Kumar's observation that unless the MOF agrees to relax the rule the claim can be disallowed even if passed is justified. You may follow it up through the laid down procedures for relaxation, if there is any.
P. Venu
(Expert) 19 October 2014
The objection of the audit is based not on any rule (i.e. a statutory rule notified under Article 309), but an administrative instruction. It is the bane of the service jurisprudence in our country that officials in key positions are unable comprehend the distinction between a statutory rule and a mere administrative instruction having no force of law.
There could not be any case of excess payment since reimbursement is restricted to LTC-80 fare.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 20 October 2014
yes the objection is based on administrative instructions. But these are the instructions which regulate air travel while on LTC and tour.
Unless these instructions are found contradicting any any rule (i.e. a statutory rule notified under Article 309), these are enforceable.
THE AUTHOR HAS NOT COME WITH VITAL FACTS AS TO WHETHER THE LTC UNDER UNDER ANY SCHEME AND WHETHER FARE REIMBURSED IS (OR IS NOT) MORE THAN INDIAN AIRLINES FARE ON THE SAME.
