Dismissed¶35

Union of India and 3 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Another

Service law – Retirement Travelling Allowance / Composite Transfer Grant (CTG)

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026WRIA/3762/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CTG; Composite Transfer Grant; Retirement Travelling Allowance; TA claim after retirement; declared home town Khaga Fatehpur; residence at Prayagraj; Indian Audit and Accounts Department; Assistant Accounts Officer retired 11.01.2024; transporter verification; Pawan Road Lines; FASTag toll receipts; Government Order on retiring government servants' TA; Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench; Article 226; Union of India; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's order allowing the respondent's TA/CTG claim undisturbed. ¶35

Union of India and 3 Others vs Central… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal's order allowing the respondent's TA/CTG claim undisturbed.

¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent, a retired government servant whose declared home town in official records was Khaga, Fatehpur, was entitled to CTG/TA reimbursement for his journey to his home town despite having a place of residence at Prayagraj after retirement. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The Government Order sanctioning TA to a retiring government servant for the journey to his home town and reimbursement of transportation of personal effects cannot be read to require that the person travel to his home town only for permanently settling there; returning to and staying at the place of last posting is not barred.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The respondent's home town in the official records is admittedly Khaga, Fatehpur, and he claimed TA on the basis of his visit and transportation charges under the Government Order; the petitioners' attempt to deny CTG by emphasising post-retirement residence at Prayagraj was untenable.

¶28

Key takeaways

Merely having a place of residence at Prayagraj does not, by itself, disentitle the respondent from seeking CTG for travel to his admitted home town; the petitioners' entire approach in denying CTG on that count is a pedantic attempt and cannot be countenanced.ratio¶32
The transport agency's failure to furnish its bank account statement proving toll payment through FASTag cannot be a reason to discard its verification of the bill, since the petitioners' demand was only a request and the agency's non-obliging cannot be used against the respondent.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Retirement Travelling Allowance / Composite Transfer Grant (CTG) - writ petition by Union of India against CAT, Allahabad Bench order dated 18.12.2025 allowing a retired Assistant Accounts Officer's claim of Rs. 91,246/- as CTG for journey to his declared home town, Khaga, Fatehpur, and setting aside the rejection communication dated 14.11.2024 - Authorities refused the claim on the ground that the retiree resided at Prayagraj and the transporter could not produce FASTag/bank statement for toll payment - Held: (i) the Government Order permitting TA to the home town and reimbursement of transportation of personal effects does not require permanent settlement at the home town, and the retiree may return to his place of last posting; (ii) the home town in official records being admittedly Khaga, Fatehpur, mere residence at Prayagraj after retirement does not disentitle the CTG claim, and the denial was a pedantic attempt; (iii) the transporter verified the bill, and its inability to furnish the bank account statement for FASTag toll payment, in response to a mere request, cannot discredit the verification - Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 3762 of 2026

¶3

Union of India and 3 others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Central Administrative Tribunal and another

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

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

¶9

Chief Justice's Court

¶10

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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

¶14

WRIA No. 3762 of 2026

¶15

¶16

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.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

WRIA No. 3762 of 2026

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

WRIA No. 3762 of 2026

¶30

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

Consequently, the petition is dismissed .

¶36

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶37

April 2, 2026 AHA

¶38

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

Union of India and 3 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and 3 Others v. Central Administrative Tribunal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S Atul Construction Company and 3 Others

Sunil Kumar Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Kuldeep Gupta vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Pal Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Dinesh Kumar Mishra and Another Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Union of India and 3 Others Vs Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench and Another