PDA

View Full Version : Whether LTC bill settled to employee can be re-opened when the same is wrong?



gconnect
19-09-2010, 08:35 AM
I am working as Inspector of Central Excise at Kolkata. I have travelled to Ladakh in the state of Jammu & Kashmir in June, 2006 with my family availing the benefit of LTC for the Bock Year, 2001 to 2005 ( extended to 2006 ). After returning from the tour I have submitted my claim for the LTC within stipulated time of 90 days from the date of completion of journey. Accounts Section of my office forwarded the documents to concerned P.A.O. office late. P.A.O.office raised some objection against my journey conducted by Air. I have furnished necessary clarification immediately quoting all the relevant DOPT orders in support my claim. In the mean time as there was confusion about the reimbursement of my claim and the amount was substantially large I ahve deposited Rs. 15,000.00 through T.R.6 Challan in November, 2006 to the department in ordr to avoid paiment of interest after settlement of the claim. This was done as per the suggestion of the Accounts Section of my office. The accounts section did not forward the clarification furnished by me to P.A.O. immediately and kept unattended with them for a long pariod. Later after several request from my end they frwarded the same to P.A.O. office in April, 2009 and my claim was sanctioned as per my clarification. But at the time of forwarding the revised claim for 2nd time my office has forgotten to include the information of deposit of Rs. 15,000.00 against the said claim. After sanction of the subject claim of said L.T.C. bill when I claim reurn of the said Rs. 15,000.00 which was deposited through T.R.6 Challan, P.A.O. office Klkata rejected the claim mentioning that once L.T.C. bill was settled, further claim could not be entertained against same bill. Due to mistake of my office I have lost s. 15,000.00 for which I was no way responsible. In order to get clarification in this regard whether such an amount deposited earlier against any L.T.C. bill may be reimbursed to the candidate after settlement of the respective L.T.C. Bill or not I have sent several latters to DOPT authority but did not receive any reply from them.

What is remedy in this issue?

tvenkatam
19-09-2010, 11:33 AM
Dear Friend,

The case is too old to consider for re-opening.

However, the deposit of Rs. 15000 receipted vide T.R. 6 by your department will still be available for adjustment. You may have this deposit adjusted in future bills of LTC/Tour TA.

monalisa924
18-10-2011, 03:42 PM
If any LTC claim is settled one or two years back, if that case can be reopened? when the office is at fault, if any one/two yr old case can be reopened and the incumbent can be asked to refund the amount when the cause cited is it was erroneously sanctioned LTC by the office?

RKPATHAK
19-10-2011, 09:24 PM
Ta/LTC claim once settled need not be reopened

monalisa924
20-10-2011, 11:26 AM
Is there any rule that once an LTC claim is settled, it need not be reopened?

RKPATHAK
20-10-2011, 08:04 PM
Kindly consult FR/SR2

sinha_audit
20-10-2011, 11:17 PM
The provision for not reopening of LTC bill once settled actually pertains to situations where events (such as pay fixation, promotion etc.) occurring at a later date but taking effect from a date in the past would have borne material change (such as entitled class/mode of travel), had the bill settled AFTER the material change.

This provision has nothing to do where a refund by the employee not being acknowledged at the time of settlement of claim. Now, it has become a case of missing credit. The employee concerned had debited the Govt A/c but no corresponding credit was awarded. The employee should be refunded the same by a supplementary bill against the claim settled. This should have been done promptly after the matter was reported.

This will not be equivalent of "re-opening" of the settled claim, since entitlement in r/t mode/class, journey length, eligibility of co-passengers etc. are not being re-evaluated which are the routine examination while admitting an LTC claim.

I am surprised how employee was made to suffer for exclusion of a fact by the A/c wing, when he actually had refunded the exchequer. Hope this helped.

monalisa924
21-10-2011, 11:13 AM
Well, in this particular case a Gr B employee was sanctioned LTC to NER By air in 2006-2009 block (any where in India) . Again he was sanctioned LTC to NER by air in 2010- 2013 block year (any where in India) . Now one year after the claim has been settled, the case have been reopened and Administrative Officer has opined that the SECOND LTC to Shillong by air has been sanctioned by mistake and the employee has been asked to return the excess amount between air and entitled class. Now my question is 1) Is there any clear cut rule by DOPT that second time LTC to NER by air on All India LTC is not admissble (2) here the office is at fault by sanctioning the LTC OM by air in the first place , otherwise the employee could have gone in the entitled class. Is it justified that he should be victimised now for the fault of the office administration?

sinha_audit
21-10-2011, 11:39 AM
Well, in this particular case a Gr B employee was sanctioned LTC to NER By air in 2006-2009 block (any where in India) . Again he was sanctioned LTC to NER by air in 2010- 2013 block year (any where in India) . Now one year after the claim has been settled, the case have been reopened and Administrative Officer has opined that the SECOND LTC to Shillong by air has been sanctioned by mistake and the employee has been asked to return the excess amount between air and entitled class. Now my question is 1) Is there any clear cut rule by DOPT that second time LTC to NER by air on All India LTC is not admissble (2) here the office is at fault by sanctioning the LTC OM by air in the first place , otherwise the employee could have gone in the entitled class. Is it justified that he should be victimised now for the fault of the office administration?

There is no restriction whatsoever in availing LTC to any particular place any number of times. You have quoted that 2006-09 All India was availed to NER. Now, when "Anywhere in India" is availed to NER, the journey has to be performed as per the entitled class/mode of travel. Since you had qualified it as "NER by air", it seems that the LTCs could have been as "in lieu of home town". Even then, there was nothing wrong since they belonged to different block years.

monalisa924
21-10-2011, 12:42 PM
No. Here in lieu of home town case does not arise as the home town and place of posting is same. Office is sanctioning All India LTC (4 yr block- any where in India) to NER by air to all these persons as per interpretation of rule no (i) of DoPT OM no.31011/4/2007- Estt A dated 02/05/2008. Only in this case, the person (GP-4200/-) had been sanctioned All India LTC to NER by air twice in different block years (one in 2006-2009 another in 2010- 2013). The person travelled by air as per the sanctioned OM of the office. After one yr, he has been asked by the office to refund the excess amount as the sanction was erroneous. Is it justified?

sinha_audit
11-02-2012, 08:09 PM
No. Here in lieu of home town case does not arise as the home town and place of posting is same. Office is sanctioning All India LTC (4 yr block- any where in India) to NER by air to all these persons as per interpretation of rule no (i) of DoPT OM no.31011/4/2007- Estt A dated 02/05/2008. Only in this case, the person (GP-4200/-) had been sanctioned All India LTC to NER by air twice in different block years (one in 2006-2009 another in 2010- 2013). The person travelled by air as per the sanctioned OM of the office. After one yr, he has been asked by the office to refund the excess amount as the sanction was erroneous. Is it justified?

I dont know how I missed it. Extremely sorry for the herculean late response.
No. The Office Order to refund the amount as erronous sanction is unjustified. LTC to NER by air as "anywhere in India" is allowed to everyone once in a block of 4 years. Since the sanctions pertained to different 4-years block, they are regular and asking for refund is not in order.

sinha_audit
11-02-2012, 08:12 PM
No. Here in lieu of home town case does not arise as the home town and place of posting is same. Office is sanctioning All India LTC (4 yr block- any where in India) to NER by air to all these persons as per interpretation of rule no (i) of DoPT OM no.31011/4/2007- Estt A dated 02/05/2008. Only in this case, the person (GP-4200/-) had been sanctioned All India LTC to NER by air twice in different block years (one in 2006-2009 another in 2010- 2013). The person travelled by air as per the sanctioned OM of the office. After one yr, he has been asked by the office to refund the excess amount as the sanction was erroneous. Is it justified?

Sorry for the herculean late response. Dont know how I miised that !!

No. Since the sanctions pertained to different 4-years block, the sanctions were in regulation and asking for refund is not in order.