TILAK RAJ SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Judgment text excerpt

$~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, 19881 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 1 “LTC Rules”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU WP(C) 772/2018 Page 1 of 8 KALRA Signing Date:24.01.2025 15:28:10 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