B.C.Kandpal, A.C.J. - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the peti tioner has sought the relief for issuing the writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 05-10-1999, 22-10-1999, 03-03-2003 and 06-08-2003 (Annexure Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 to this writ petition) passed by respondent Nos. 3, 5 and Central Administrative Tri bunal, Allahabad Bench, respectively.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner is posted as Store Keeper, Grade II in the Department of Survey of India, Subhash Road, Dehradun. The petitioner was entitled to get Leave Travel Concession (hereinafter referred as 'LTC'J for the block year 1998-2001 and accordingly, he applied for the same on 24-02-1998 for himself and his family members, in order to conduct the jour ney from Dehradun to Kanyakumari and return back. The application submitted by the petitioner was allowed by the De partment and he was received 90% of the total expenses of journey i.e. Rs. 22, 680/- by the authorities concerned. The petitioner undertook the jour ney operated by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, Uttar Pradesh (Now under Uttarakhand Government Undertaking). The petitioner was under the impression by virtue of the notification dated 29-03-1988 that the tours operated and con ducted by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam were duly approved for L.T.C. Accord ingly, the petitioner undertook his jour ney from Dehradun to Kanyakumari and returned back, but surprisingly, after his returning back from the journey, the pe titioner was asked by respondent No. 5 to refund the amount of advance on the pretext that despite instructions given by him to perform journey only by railway or Government owned transport, the pe titioner and his family travelled by Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam transport. The petitioner submitted his explanation before the respondent No. 5 and re quested the authorities to sanction the claim of the expenses in pursuance to the bill submitted by him. The petitioner also took the plea that the L.T.C. claims of the other office personnel were passed by respondent No. 5 for the journey per formed by them through Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam operated buses without any objection or adverse objection thereon, but the respondents/authorities did not pass the bill and insisted upon for refund of the advance L.T.C. amount sanctioned to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 05-10-1999 and 22-10-1999, the petitioner filed an application before the Central Administration Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, but the same was also rejected by Central Administrative Tri bunal, Allahabad Bench vide its order dated 03-03-2003. Thereafter, the peti tioner filed an application for review but the same also stood rejected vide order dated 06-08-2006.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that after the order passed by the Cen tral Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, the respondents have started de duction of Rs. 1, 000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner towards the amount paid to him for L.T.C. Hence, the petitioner has approached the recov ery of Rs. 1, 000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned orders dated 05-10-1999, 22-10-1999, 03-03-2003 and 06-08-2003. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents/Union of India and in the counter affidavit, it has been pleaded that the L.T.C. journey is per missible through rail or State owned buses. Even the cars or taxis are not per mitted. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner himself had given an under taking that he will travel through rail or Government owned buses, but the petitioner along with his family had travelled by the chartered buses of Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, ignoring the office memorandum dated 09-02-1998 which clearly indicates that the Government em ployee would not be permitted to travel for L.T.C. by chartered buses on tour conducted by I.T.D.C./State Tourism De partment Corporation or local bodies like, Garhwal and Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd., etc. In case, the tour is con ducted/operated by the above bodies in buses owned by them and registered with the Regional Transport Authorities in the name of I.T.D.C. or local bodies, etc. It has been pleaded in the counter affida vit that the tour was undertaken by the petitioner and his family members in the buses not owned by the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam but in the buses owned by the agent of the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam. The respondents have thus pleaded that the petitioner was not enti tled to undertake the L.T.C. in the buses owned by the private agent of the Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam. Hence, the recovery to be made from the salary of the petitioner is perfectly justified.;