Central Govt Employee Cannot Change Destination Midway While Claiming Leave Travel Concession: Delhi High Court

In the case at hand, LTC was originally sought for travel to Trivandrum, which was subsequently changed to Goa, via Mumbai. However, the petitioner decided midway to change his destination to certain hill stations in Uttarakhand.

A division bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul thus refused to review their January 17 order, dismissing the Petitioner's petition seeking a direction to its employer to clear his LTC bill. It said,

“A plain reading of LTC Rule-6 and Order No.25/D.G.P. & T.N.D.No.20/1/79-PAP dated 01.09.1979 makes this very simple that there will be no midway change in the destination and if due to some unavoidable circumstance it has been changed, then also it will be a destination which is en route.

The destination for which permission was sought (Goa) lies in the western part of the country, whereas the destination to which the petitioner claims to have travelled lies in the northern part of the country. This clearly shows that both destinations are not en route to each other.”

In its judgment, the bench had also discussed the importance of establishing “unavoidable circumstances” which would justify dispensation with the requirement of prior permission before changing destination.

The petitioner is a person with disability and was working as Upper Division Clerk in the Income Tax Department under Divyangjan quota. In July 2012, he had made a declaration under Rule 6 for going to Trivandrum and had received an LTC advance.

In April 2013 however, he sought a change in destination to Goa via Bombay and by road on car instead of train. However, when he reached around Mathura, he felt that the journey to Goa by road would be too long and hence, he headed to Uttarakhand. Later, he opted for voluntary retirement.

At this juncture, the amount advanced to him as LTC was adjusted against his gratuity, stating that he had failed to travel within 30 days from the date of receipt of advance.

The High Court had upheld the Department's action citing Rule 6 of the LTC Rules, whereunder “the petitioner was under obligation to commence his journey within 30 days. But instead of travelling, the petitioner applied for change of not only the destination but also the mode of travel from train to car, that too after almost 300 days.”

It had also noted that despite several reminders by the Department, the petitioner did not deposit back the advance received by him.

“The petitioner is also at fault with regard to the second part of LTC Rule-6, which mandates that the destination will not be changed once the journey has commenced, until and unless it is due to some unavoidable circumstance and is beyond the control of the government employee. The petitioner vide his communication dated 14.06.2013, claimed that due to the long distance between Meerut and Goa, and his disability, he had to abort his journey at Mathura. From there, he travelled to Pauri, Lansdowne, Dalhousie, Amritsar and back to Meerut. By no stretch of imagination, the reason given for the change of destination would fall in the category of unavoidable circumstance and beyond the control of the petitioner,” Court had said.

In his review, Petitioner levelled allegations of “victimization” by the Department even on previous occasions. He said that a case in this regard is pending before the Patiala House Court.

The Court however said that the judgment was passed strictly in terms of the applicable policy and the allegations do not constitute grounds for review.

As such, the plea was dismissed.

Case title: Tilak Raj Singh v. Union Of India And Ors

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 213

Case no.: W.P.(C) 772/2018

Click here to read order

Click here to read impugned order