+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

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

  1. #1
    Administrator gconnect has disabled reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    56

    Default Whether LTC bill settled to employee can be re-opened when the same is wrong?

    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?

  2. #2
    Senior Member tvenkatam is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    641

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Junior Member monalisa924 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default Reopening of LTC case?

    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?

  4. #4
    Senior Member RKPATHAK is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Gurgaon
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Ta/LTC claim once settled need not be reopened

  5. #5
    Junior Member monalisa924 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Is there any rule that once an LTC claim is settled, it need not be reopened?

  6. #6
    Senior Member RKPATHAK is an unknown quantity at this point
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Gurgaon
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Kindly consult FR/SR2

  7. #7
    Senior Member sinha_audit is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kolkata, WB
    Posts
    160

    Default Rectifying missing credit.

    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.
    Last edited by sinha_audit; 20-10-2011 at 11:20 PM.
    Alok Sinha.

  8. #8
    Junior Member monalisa924 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default LTC bill once settled can not be reopened

    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?

  9. #9
    Senior Member sinha_audit is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kolkata, WB
    Posts
    160

    Default Admn is in the wrong

    Quote Originally Posted by monalisa924 View Post
    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.
    Alok Sinha.

  10. #10
    Junior Member monalisa924 is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    12

    Default LTC bill once settled can not be reopened

    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?

  11. #11
    Senior Member sinha_audit is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kolkata, WB
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monalisa924 View Post
    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.
    Alok Sinha.

  12. #12
    Senior Member sinha_audit is on a distinguished road
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kolkata, WB
    Posts
    160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by monalisa924 View Post
    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.
    Alok Sinha.

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 28-12-2011, 10:45 PM
  2. Wrong Fixations and stepping up on or after 1.1.2006 in 7450-11,500
    By krishnan09 in forum Contribution of admin contents and useful links by members
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 13-05-2010, 05:10 PM
  3. Medical bill reimbursement
    By ATANU DE in forum CGHS and Medical Attendance Rules
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 20-03-2010, 10:32 AM
  4. New Pay Bill Software
    By ayush in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 15-10-2008, 07:01 PM
  5. Wrong pay fixation
    By mk1969 in forum Pay Fixation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-10-2008, 05:47 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts