Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr Sanjay Prasad & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 29 Oct 2025 · 2025:DHC:9516-DB

Navin Chawla; Madhu Jain

W.P.(C) 4928/2023 & W.P.(C) 6229/2023

(2023) SCC OnLine Del 2761

administrative appeal_dismissed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal's direction to reimburse LTC air fare claims based on authorised agent fares, allowing website bookings if not exceeding authorised fares, and directed recovery of excess amounts with interest.

Full Text

W.P.(C) 4928/2023 & W.P.(C) 6229/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 29.10.2025 (11)+ W.P.(C) 4928/2023 & CM APPL. 19057/2023
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
THROUGH ITS MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms.Sonam Anand, Mr.Yakesh Anand, Mr.Akshay Thakur and
Mr.Shubham Goyal, Advs. for ESIC

VERSUS

DR SANJAY PRASAD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Illashree, Ms.Yogita, Mr.Harkesh Parashar, Ms.Hemalatha Mahur and
Mr.Yogesh Kumar Mahur, Advs. for R-1.
Ms.Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC

WITH

Ms.Kanchan Shakya, Mr.Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Mr.Shivansh Bansal and
Mr.Priyam Sharma, Advs. for UOI (12)+ W.P.(C) 6229/2023 & CM APPL. 24470/2023
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms.Sonam Anand, Mr.Yakesh Anand, Mr.Akshay Thakur and
Mr.Shubham Goyal, Advs. for GOPAL JOSHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Illashree, Ms.Yogita, Mr.Harkesh Parashar, Ms.Hemalatha Mahur and
Mr.Yogesh Kumar Mahur, Advs. for R-1 & 2.
Ms.Nidhi Raman, CGSC

WITH

Mr.Mayank Sansanwal, Adv. for UOI

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

JUDGMENT

1. These petitions have been filed, challenging the Order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 750/2021, titled Dr. Sanjay Prasad & Anr. v. Union of India through its Secretary & Ors.; and the Order dated 25.11.2022 passed in O.A. No. 204/2021, titled Gopal Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India Through its Secretary & Ors., whereby the O.As. filed by the respondents herein were allowed by the learned Tribunal, directing the petitioners to assess and grant reimbursement of air fare to the respondents for their Leave Travel Concession (in short, ‘LTC’) journeys, for the best available fare on their entitled travel class, based on the price charged by authorised agents.

2. Without going into the merits of the petitions, we find that a similar issue has already been considered by this Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. Ajay Kumar & Ors., (2023) SCC OnLine Del 2761, wherein the Writ Petition had been disposed of with the following directions:

“13. In the case in hand, the respondents are working as Para Medics which is a Group-C post. It is not the case of the petitioners herein that the respondents have made a claim for LTC of a higher amount than they would have paid to the authorised travel agent. So in that sense, by booking from a website, the respondents have made a claim of equivalent amount which they would have made, had they booked their tickets from authorised agents. In that view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal need no interference except in the eventuality, the petitioners/Corporation is of the view that the claim of the respondents towards LTC is not as per the amount payable according to the price of air tickets that would have been charged by the authorised travel agent, recover/adjust/deduct from the respondents the amount excess of such price. To that extent, the order of the Tribunal stands modified. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from today and the balance amount of LTC, in the eventuality payable, be paid to the respondents within a period of four weeks thereafter.”

3. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the Impugned Orders, but directing that the same should not be treated as a precedent, we dispose of the present petitions with the directions similar to the directions passed in Ajay Kumar (supra).

4. The said directions shall be complied with by the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today.

5. The amount found payable to the respondents shall be paid by the petitioners along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, calculated from the date of the said amount becoming due to the respondents.

6. The petitions, along with the pending applications, are accordingly disposed of.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J OCTOBER 29, 2025/sg/Yg

Employees State Insurance Corporation v. Dr Sanjay Prasad & Ors.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation