UNION OF INDIA AND 3 OTHERSversusCENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - A No. - 3762 of 2026

Union of India and 3 others
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal and another
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                  :   Manu Vardhana
Counsel for Respondent(s)                  :   Saiyed Jafar Ishtiaque

Chief Justice's Court
            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. This petition is directed against order dated 18 December 2025 passed
by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
('Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application ('OA') filed by the
respondent has been allowed and communication dated 14.11.2024 issued
by the petitioners has been set aside and directions have been issued to
process the respondent's claim of Travelling Allowance ('TA') for his
journey to his declared home town after retirement in accordance with
rules and his admissibility within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the order.

2. The OA was filed seeking a direction to the petitioners to reimburse
the sum of Rs. 91,246/- as a Composite Transfer Grant ('CTG') claim.
Submissions were made that the respondent was an employee of the
Indian Audit and Accounts Department and retired as Assistant Accounts
Officer on 11.01.2024 while serving at Prayagraj. The home town
declared by the respondent as well as accepted by the petitioners was
Khaga, Fatehpur (Uttar Pradesh) which is evident from the papers of the
respondent connected with the payments after retirement, issued by the
petitioners.

3. It was claimed that in terms of the Retirement Travelling Allowance
Rules, the Central Government allows reimbursement of expenses of
travelling for settling down after retirement, including journey of the
employees and their family and transporting all personal effects. The
                                                        WRIA No. 3762 of 2026
                               2


respondent submitted TA bills as per rules for his journey to his declared
home town, however, objections were raised, the bill was returned in
original with the remark that the CTG claim has been rejected. Feeling
aggrieved, the OA was filed.

4. The petitioners claimed that though the home town declared by the
respondent is at Khaga, Fatehpur but the respondent has not relocated to
his home town and therefore, the claim has been rejected. It was also
claimed that a letter was sent to Pawan Road Lines, who had purportedly
transported the goods seeking authenticity of the receipts along with toll
plaza receipts but no response was received.

5. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the
initial rejection was without giving any reason, however, in the counter
affidavit, several reasons have been attributed to the rejection, such as the
respondent owns a house in Prayagraj, he is a registered voter at
Prayagraj, he draws his pension from his bank account in Prayagraj, his
wife is working at Prayagraj, he is practising as an Advocate at Prayagraj,
and his Aadhar Card has the address of Prayagraj and therefore, his
shifting to Khaga, Fatehpur is doubtful.

6. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that mere owning a house in
Prayagraj does not imply that the employee does not want to settle in his
home town which, in this case, is different from Prayagraj but is not very
far away, the respondent never changed his permanent home town or
address and the petitioners have also not stated anything in this regard.
The plea of use of bank accounts at Prayagraj and use of CHGS Card,
which facility is available at Prayagraj, was discredited by the Tribunal
being available throughout the country and ruled that petitioners failed to
establish that respondent has changed his home town during his service
period or has submitted a fake TA bill and consequently, allowed the OA
and passed directions as noticed herein before.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions claiming
that the respondent was factually relocated at Prayagraj and therefore, he
was not entitled to CTG. Submissions were made that under the directions
of this Court dated 19 March 2026, again an inquiry was made from the
                                                        WRIA No. 3762 of 2026
                               3


transporter whose receipt was filed by the respondent for verification of
the bill and production of toll tax receipts for the transportation in
question who, though verified the bill, however, could not produce the
FASTag receipt/bank account statement as it was claimed that payment
was made through FASTag and therefore, it is apparent that the Tribunal
fell in error in assuming that respondent was entitled to seek CTG and
therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

8. Counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned. Submissions
were made that for a sum of about Rs. 90,000/-, the petitioners are taking
wholly unreasonable stand and are essentially contending that the home
town of an employee, on account of his long stay at a particular place,
would get changed and irrespective of his utilising the CTG, the payment
can be refused to him. It was submitted that the Tribunal has thoroughly
considered the issue and the same under Article 226 of the Constitution
does not call for any interference.

9. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.

10. The relevant Government Order sanctions the grant of TA to retiring
government servants in respect of the journey of the government servant
and members of his family from the last station of his duty to his home
town or to the place where he and his family are to settle down
permanently even if it is other than his declared home town and in respect
of the transportation of his personal effects between the same place.

11. A perusal of the above reveals that the person is entitled along with
his family for TA to his home town and reimbursement in respect of
transportation of his personal effects. The said provision cannot be read to
mean that the person is required to travel to his home town and seek
reimbursement of transportation charges only if he is to travel to his home
town for permanently settling there and cannot return to his place of last
posting and stay there.

12. Admittedly, the home town of the respondent in the official records is
Khaga, Fatehpur and the respondent has claimed TA based on his visit
and transportation charges for the purpose in terms of the said
                                                                                           WRIA No. 3762 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    Government Order. The petitioners, only with a view to deny the said
                                    CTG to the respondent, attempted to emphasize that the respondent was
                                    having his place of residence post retirement at Prayagraj.

                                    13. Merely on account of having place of residence at Prayagraj, by itself,
                                    would not dis-entitle the respondent from seeking the CTG for travel to
                                    his admitted home town and therefore, the entire exercise on part of the
                                    petitioners in denying the CTG to the respondent on the said count cannot
                                    be countenanced. The entire approach of the petitioners is nothing but a
                                    pedantic attempt in somehow refusing the grant of CTG to the respondent.

                                    14. So far as the enquiry conducted by the petitioners from the transport
                                    agency is concerned, merely because the transport agency did not oblige
                                    the petitioners with the bank account statement to prove the payment of
                                    toll tax through FASTag, cannot be a reason enough to discard the
                                    verification made by the transport agency, inasmuch as the demand made
                                    by the petitioners from the transport agency was only a request and on
                                    the transport agency not obliging, cannot be used against the respondent.

                                    15. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any substance in the
                                    writ petition.

                                    16. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.



                                                                (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
                                    April 2, 2026
                                    AHA




Digitally signed by :-
AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad