ti 'Jt;r-E-mail: Rc.hrm.@epfindia.gov.in ~ /Telephone : 011-26186512 ~ /Fax : 011-26164724

cfiA'i:.11:fl ~ ~ wroa, c~-crn~.i-i~1c>1~, ~"fRqiR)

Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. Of India)

~ cfii:dic>!~/Head Office ~

~ ~ a:Jcla,, 14-~ cfiT1IT ~' ~ ~ -110 066 Bhavishya Nidhi Bhawan, 14-Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi-110 066

Website: www.epfindia.gov.in, www.epfindia.nic.in

No. HRM-8/9(21)2015/CAT/Cases~jlf

To All Addi. Central P.F. Commissioners (HQ), All Addi. Central P.F. Commissioners (Zones),

Date:-o 3 MAY 2018

Regional P.F. Commissioners-In Charge of the Regions.

Sub: Implementation of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, Principal Bench Order in O.A No. 180/00807 /2014 filed by Shri K. Jayachandran & Ors­regarding.

Sir,

Please find enclosed copy of judgement dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, copy of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Principal Bench order passed vide dated 11th Day of January, 2018 in O.A No. 180/00807/2014 filed

by Shri K. Jayachandran in the matter of payment of L TC Bill wherein the applicant has undertaken Air Journey by Private Airlines.

2. The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam, Principal Bench dismissed the O.A vide Order dated 11.01.2018, holding that "the respondents were quite right in rejecting the claim and restricting the to Railway fare as the instructions regarding the use of Air India alone for LTC covers the ground. Thus, we see no merit in the case made out by the applicants for considering their claim relating to use of private airlines. Thus, the O.A is rejected devoid of merit."

3. It is, therefore, requested to use the above judgments for regulating the cases of LTC claims relating to private airlines in respect of officers/officials working under your Jurisdiction.

Ends: As above. tiaithfully,

(Naresh Regional P.F. Commissioner-

~ :0471-2441985

~ : 0471-2441750

~~fitflt~ ('ll'lr vi~~. ln«f ~

~~~vi~ "Jifac;qf.l~ ll'lr.t', qpr, fcl:oa.iw1v1 - 695004

~ ~

TEL : 0471-2441985 FAX : 0471-2441750

nQ)onJ~O<Il>°lcru O(_nJO(lJruJ~ nOO'B 630<0<n6l6lffi0CTU~frn, ( 6l<lll0\91ai8 & nQ)onJO~O<DJ6lQl111l(_CTOJOeJCDJo ),

soma» cruro.96>o<il, oe,QJQJ) dblR>J)QJ(ll>o.

~ .&ei.-aII.J, 'sn.il,>9d,\mw1 esrucrn', nJ§o <OlKl>l(1JffiCTOlnJl(l)o - 695 004

EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Govt. of India)

Zonal Office (Kerala & lakshadweep) "Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan", Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 004

E mail : acc.ker@epfindia.gov.in

No.ZO/KR/T-1/0P(CAT) 231/2017 1/ /)t3\

Dated '­..

To

By name to:

Shri.Sanjay Bisht, RPFC-I(HRM)

~ Central P.F.Commissioner New Delhi

3 NOV 2017 COURT CASE

Sub: OP(CAT) 231/2017 filed by EPFO against the order of CAT in O.A.No.807 /2014 filed by Shri.K.Jayachandran& others - reg.

Ref: HO Letter No.HRM-8/9(21)/2015/CAT/6100 dated 14.06.2017

Sir,

Please refer to the above.

~ The OP(CAT) 231/2017 filed by us before the Hon'ble High Court ~ ~ against the order dated 25.10.2016 of the CAT, Ernakularn in QA 807 /2014 µ{, has been disposed vide judgment dated 19.09.2017. The judgment is in

{r11 .[\ favour of EPFO. A copy of the judgment is enclosed for information and

ij~ record.

y~\,\\"J'J\~ Yours faithfully

Encl: as above ( / ~

(RENO RAMCHANDRAN) REGIONAL P.F.COMMISSIONER-1

..•

IN THE HIGH cou:RT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017 /28TH BHADRA, 1939

OP (CAT).No. 231 of 2017 (Z)

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA.180 / 00807 /2014 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 25.l0.2016

PETIT!ONERS/RSPONDENTS IN THEO.A.:.

1. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, 14-BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE, NEW DELHi-1 l 0065, REPRESENTED BY CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER.

2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (TN & KR), EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATIOf\J, ZONAL OFFICE, 37, ROYAPETIAH HIGH ROAD, CHENNAl-600 014.

3. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMM1SS10NER -1, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION , SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695{)01.

4. REGIONAL PROViDEI\JT FUND COMMISSlONER, EMPLOYEES PROViDi::NT FUND ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 006.

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN {SR.) SMTT.N.G!RIJA, SC,EPF ORGANISATION ·

RESPONDENTS / APPLICANTS.IN THEO.A.: . . . . . . . - . . ----- . - .

L JAYACHANDRAN:K., AGED 58 YEARS, S/0.LATE KRISHNAN NAIR, SECTION SUPERVISOR, EPF ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNHIPALAM, KOZH!KODE 670006, RESIDING AT SREELAKSHMI, MOKAVOOR ROAD, KARUVASS£RY P.O., KOZHIKODE--673010.

l .

OP (CAT).No. 231 of 2017 (Z)

2. PADMANABHAN.K., AGED 54 YEARS, S/0.LATE K.GOPALAN NAIR, SENIOR SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISATANT (TBP), EPF ORGANIZATION, SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 670006, RESIDINGAT PADMASREE, PO KOOTHALY, KOZHiKODE 673532.

3. BAU.KRISHNAN K.P., AGED 52 YEARS, S/0.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, SENIOR SOCIAL SECURITY ASSISTANT (TBP), EPF ORGANIZATION SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE 670006, RESIDING AT PADINJAREKOTIAYIL, P.O.VENGERI, KOZH!KODE 673 010.

BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMiSSION ON l 9-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..

?.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIR.CY V., JJ.

O.P.(CAT)No.231 of 2017

----------------------------------------------------~--Dated this the 1gtti day of Septemberr 2017

JUDGMENT

Ramachandra Menon, J.

Correctness ar:d sust3inability of Ext. P4 order passed by

the Tribunal, virtually allowing the O.A. by setting aside the

orders under challenge ah.d making the applicants eligible for

the amounts spent under the LTC while undertaking Air travel

in a private Air Hne, is under challenge at the instance of the

respondents in the O.A. Main contention is that, the verdict

passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the relevant OMs issued

by the Government at different points of time, stipulating that

such travel could only be in Air India and further that it is

without any discussion with regard to the case projected by

the said respondents in the reply statement.

2. Heard Mr.N.N.Sugunapalan, the learned Standing

Counsel . appearing . for ·. the . petitioners as . well as ..

SrLP.Ramakrishnan, the !earned coL!nsel appearing on behalf . . . . . .

· of the respondents.

0. P. (CAT)No.231/2 017

. . 2 ..

3. The sum and substance of the case projected by 'the

petitioners is that the respondents/applicants were serving in

different capacities as Group-B officers under the petitioners

and by virtue of the terms and conditions of service, they were

eligible to have LTC benefit, also by way of air travel as per the

relevant Rules/Office Memoranda issued at different po ints of

time. It was accordingly, that they undertook a travel to

Sikkim by commencing the journey from Kozhikode to Chennai

by rail; from there to Bagdogra by Air (Spice Jet) and

thereafter on return to Culcutta by Ai r (Sp ice Jet) to Chennai;

from where to the place of commencement of journey by rail.

This was in the year 2013. For undertaking the travel they

have claimed and received advance and later, put up the claim

submitting the tickets and such other relevant particulars for

reimbursement of the entire amount . . . . : . . _: _·._ .. · ·. ·.. ·. ·. . : : . . .... _· ... ·_. . ... · ..

4. The claim was considered and it was rejected by the

.· Department stating that they were not ent1tled to travel by

'private air-Hne' and were on1y -eHgib~e to have undertaken

O.P.(CAT)No.231/2017

.. 3 ..

travel by Air India; under which circumstance, no amount

more than the amount payable for undertaking the journey by t

rail could be sanctioned. It was accordingly, that Annexures

A7, A15 and A18 came to be issued which made the petitioners

feel aggrieved, who approached the Tribunal by challenging the ·

said proceedings and for granting the following rellefs:-

"A) issue an order quashing and setting aside

Annexure A-7, A-1.5 to A-18r

B) Hold that the applicants are entitled to get

reimbursement of the amounts spent by them

for travelling by air to North-eastern Region on

LTC by private airliner,

C) Hold that the applicants are entitled for the

benefit of Annexure A-9 and A-10 for air travel

made by ·them to North-eastf~rn region by

private airlines, and

D) Such other orders and directions as are deemed

fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

· S. .· ExLP2 reply statement was filed from . the part of

the petitioners herein also ,produclng v arious documents such

as Annexures.Rl to R9. It yvas ·mainly . contended that, · by ·

virtue of the re-levant O.M., particularly the O.M. bear1ng

O.P.(CAT)No.231/2017

.. 4 ..

·~ No.31011/2/2006-Estt(A) dated 11.3.2010 (Annexure.A8), the

journey had to be undertaken only by Air India; failing which

the employee would be entitled to get only the rail fare and ·

nothing more than that. Reliance was also sought to be placed

on Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988,

besides such other documents as produced and · mentioned

above. The applicants filed Ext.P3 rejoinder seeking to assert

their claim with reference to Annexure.A20 clarification issued

by the authorities of the Government, which according to the

applicants was standing in their favour, facilitating air travel

even by private airlines.

6. After hearing both the sides the Tribunal referred to

the case projected by the applicants and the submissions made

with reference to O.M.bearing No.31011/2/2006-Estt.(A) dated

24.4.2006 and Annexure.A20 clarification and · it was

. accordingly held that Annexures A7 1 A15 to A18 vv~re liable to ·

·.· beset aside. The Tribunal held that, by vlrtue of the extension ·

of -Annexure .. A9 from t1me to time, the appJicants were entitled

O.P.(CAT)No.231/2017

.. 5 ..

to perform the journey by private airline and it was -­

accordingly, that the 0.A. was allowed directigg the

respondents to recalculate the LTC allowable to the applicants

in respect of the journey performed by them as mentioned in

the O.A. This in turn is challenged in this 0.P.

7. The learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners

points out that the specific case projected by the petitioners

has never been adverted to by the Tribunal anywhere in Ext.P4

order, but for referring to the case of the applicant. It is

further pointed out that the O.M. dated 24.3..2006 sought to be

relied on by the applicant was subsequently modified and that

as per- the relevant Rules/Guide!lnes/0.Ms. issued

subsequently, the journey pe,formed by the applicants in the

year 2013 was to be guided and governed only by the said

Rules/Orders and never on the basis of the OM dated

. 24.3.2006. lt is als.o po1nted out that Annexure-A9 O..M. which . .

.. · was ~tatBd as extended from time to time only spoke about .·.

the · right of the person conc€rned t-0 undertake trav€l by Air -

O.P.(CAT)No.231/2017

.. 6 ..

and that it does not enable the party to have undertaken the

travel by way of private air line. That apart as per Annexure A8

O.M . issued subsequently on . 11.3.2010, it was specifically

made clear that in respect of the LTC claim lnvoiving both

domestic and international segments, where the Government

of India bears the cost of air passage, the official concerned

may travel by Air India only, further clarifying that the

restriction of travel by 1Air India only' need not apply to non­

entitled officers who . travelled by air and claim LTC

reimbursement by entitled class of rail. This being the

position, the applicants were not eligible to have travelled by

priv.ate airiine of their choice and claim the amount

accordingly, which has been wrongiy granted by the Tr{bunal

and hence the challenge.

8. . After hearing both the sides this Court finds that the

cla1m putforth by the applicantswas stronglyrebutted by the · . . . . .

. . respondents in the O.A.by fifing detailed reply statement with ·

reference to the relevant OMs and the Rules govern1ng the field

O.P.(CAT)No.231/2017

"7"

includin-g Rule 12 of the CCS (Leave Travel Concession) Rules,

1988. On going through the contents of Ext. P4 order, nowhere --has the Tribunal made any reference to the contentions raised

by the respondents in Ext.P2 reply statement or as to the

relevant O.Ms/Rules sought to be relied on from their part.

Ext. P4 only deals with the case put forth by the applicant and

the O.M dated 24.3.2006, supplemented by Annexure-A20

clarification. After referring to the said OM/Clarification the

Tribunal has simply come to the conclusion, as discernible from "- -paragraph 2, without referring to cir discussing the case '--projected by the respondents in the O.A. Having not made -such can attempt to have the issue adjudicated based on the

rival pleadings and the orders/documents produced, it cannot - -but be said that Ext.P4 is not liable to be sustained. It is set

~-

.aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for -~- -·---fresh consideration and to_pass appropriate orders on the basis --', -. -

- -. . . . . .

- of the -pleadings raised . from both the sides -and to · have the ·

issue finalized accordingly~ ·

"----

O.P.(CAT)No.231/2017

.. 8 ..

9. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that

the applicants have been prudent enough to undertake the air

travel by private airline (Spice Jet) because at that point of

time, _ the air fare of Spice Jet · was lower than the charge

realized by the Air India. A specific ground is stated as raised

(Grounci-C) in the Original App!icatlon in this regard, which is

not specifically controverted by the respondents in the O.A.

This Court does not intend to express anything in this regard

for the time being. The stipulation that the persons, who are

undertaking the LTC travel and eligible to have airline, shall

perform such travel only by Air India, _may be a policy matter,

rather than the cost factor alone. It is also possible, when the

Government intended to finance the travel avaiiing the L-c, if

only such travel is facilitated through a Government Airline,

like Air India, would the amount come back to the pocket 9f

the _ Government in some . way or other (though the ticket ·

. charge may be on the hi-gher side than the private airliner).

. . . .

Under such circumstance, it may not be open for the parties to

..

0. P. (CAT) No .231/2017

.. 9 ..

question the logic or reasoning behind such policy . . I n any

view of the matter, since the issue has to be finalized based on

the pleadings and materials which govern the field as on the

relevant date, it is for the Tribunal to consider ali these aspects

and to have the issue fina ilzed accord ingly. It is open for the

parties to supplement the pleadings and produce add itional

documents, if any.

skj

Sd/­P.R.RAMACHA.NDRA MENON,

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

IDGH COURT OF KERALA ATERNAKULAM

Year and Nn~ber of Suit or other Proceedings

Name of Applicant/Advocate

Application Number

Application Date

Date of Calling for Stamp

Date of Production of Stamp

Date When copy was Ready

OPCAT i3I /iOI7

SRI.N .N.SUGUNAP ALAN (SR.)

A 67057/2017

22-09-2017

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

13-10-2017

Date Notified for appearance to' 23-10-2017 receive the co_py

Date when copy was delivered \C\ \\'()\\'""~

~ Examiner

OP (CAT).No. 231 of 2017 (Z)

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-Pl: ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

EXHIB1T-P2: REPLY STATEMENT.

EXHIBIT- P3: REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANTS.

EXH1BIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.25.10.2016 IN O.A.No.180/00807 / 2014.

RESPONDE!',!TS' EXHIBITS :- i\JiL

True copy iv

P.A. to Judge

r Tq: - . c: •. G•_)Yl \. ,-~~~, I ~- -, l _ ~ine, _ ·