Clarification regarding TA entitlement

The Appellant sought information with reference to sanction of his permanent TA claim which appeared to have been restricted to 2 AC train fare. He asked for a copy of authority for restricting his claim to 2nd AC train fare instead of restricting the same to shortest route of his entitlement i.e. Air Travel. He further demanded a copy of authority for deduction of taxi fare of Rs. 3060/- (Rs.1560 and Rs.1500) against the said TA claim. After going through reply of CPIO, the CIC observed that it is the lowest air fare that has been taken into account and not the train fare as stated by the appellant in his second appeal. During the hearing, he explained that the restriction is partly based on the air fare and partly on the train fare. The CIC held that though it appears that what was sanctioned was as per the appellant’s entitlement, still point no 1 needs to be properly clarified to the appellant. The second point regarding the taxi fare has been explained properly in terms of the appellant’s entitlement.

Comments

The quantum of money spent on a CIC hearing would be more that the disputed TA entitlement in this case. It is often seen that deductions are made in the TA bill by the account departments without clarifying the reasons for the same. The claimant is left on his own to decipher the reasons for the trimming of the claim.

Citation: Prathipati Bhanu Prasad v. O/o the Controller of Defence Accounts (Border Roads), File no.: CIC/CGDAC/A/2022/610238; Date of Decision: 16/03/2023

Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Visakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books, RTI Right to Information - Law and Practice and PIO’s Guide to RTI. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and Third party audit. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation of India at the link www.rtifoundationofindia.com