TILAK RAJ SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 772/2018 TILAK RAJ SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Anju Gupta with Mr. Bhuvan Goel and Mr. Shubham Grover, Advs for R-1, 2 & 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 18.02.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. REVIEW PET. 87/2025 1. This review petition seeks review of the judgment dated 17 January 2025 passed by us whereby we have dismissed WP (C) 772/2018. 2. The issue in the writ petition pertained to LTC1 availed by the review petitioner, who was the petitioner in the writ petition. The LTC was originally sought for travel to Trivandrum, which was subsequently changed to Goa, via Mumbai. The petitioner decided, 1 Leave Travel Concession Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU W.P.(C) 772/2018 Page 1 of 3 KALRA Signing Date:20.02.2025 14:21:40 midway, to change his destination certain hillstations in Uttarakhand. 3. In our judgment, we have taken note of the relevant instructions which unmistakably require prior permission of the competent authority to be taken in the event of change of destination midway. It is only where unavoidable circumstances exist, as would make it impossible to take such prior permission, that change of LTC can be granted even if there is change of destination. 4. The petitioner, who appears in person submits that he had to change his destination owing to unavoidable circumstances. We had noted, in our judgment, that, in the representation made by him on 14 June 2013, seeking LTC, the only ground taken was that. As the route to Goa was very long, the petitioner had decided to change his destination to places in Uttarakhand, as already noted. 5. We have opined that t