MANOJ KUMAR PATI vs EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION (EPFO) on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (ADMN.): The applicant, a retired Section Officer of Employees Provident Fund Organization, District Office, Cuttack, has filed this OA on 19.05.2025 seeking direction to the respondents to sanction and pay him TA (Composite Transfer and Packing Grant) for his transfer on 24.12.2021 from District Office, Cuttack to Regional Office, Bhubaneswar by quashing the Notes dated 10.05.2023 and 26.05.2023 wherein his claim was denied by the respondents INTER ALIA stating that while he was working at District Office, Cuttack, he was transferred to Bhubaneswar vide order dated 24.12.2021 and retransferred to District Office, Cuttack vide order dated 09.01.2023. In both the orders, there was no mention that the applicant and others, whose name appeared in both the orders, was entitled to any TA (CTG) as per rules, although the transfer was made on administrative ground. Subsequently, vide office order dated 17.04.2023, an office order was issued, referring to the order dated 24.12.2021 and 09.01.2023, stating therein that the officials transferred to DO, Cuttack are entitled to transfer TA as per rules. He, on the strength of the Office Order dated 17.04.2023, submitted his TA claims on RAVI KUMAR

3 O.A.No. 260/00243/2025 24.04.2023 both for Cuttack to Bhubaneswar and from Bhubaneswar to Cuttack. The respondents’ department vide Note dated 10.05.2023 did not incline to process the said application assigning the reason that his residential address while he was continuing in the office of the RO, Bhubaneswar from December, 2021 to the date of his transfer to Cuttack was not found in his service record, since, for grant of the TA (CTG), change of residential address is an inbuilt provision of rules. He submitted application on 19.05.2023 stating therein that he had already intimated his official address of Bhubaneswar on 06.01.2012, which address, he had also mentioned in his TA claim but erroneously, he did not intimate the name while he was continuing in the RO, Bhubaneswar from 03.01.2022 to 10.01.2023. Hence, he requested to condone his mistake and process his TA claim. On receipt of the said application dated 19.05.2023, the respondents’ department in Note dated 26.05.2023 intimated the applicant that he has submitted the photocopy of the application, stated to had been made on 06.01.2012, which was much prior to his transfer from DO, Cuttack to RO, Bhubaneswar during December 2021. Hence, the RAVI KUMAR

4 O.A.No. 260/00243/2025 same was rejected. It is stated that against he submitted representations on 06.10.2023 and 18.10.2023 stating his detailed address. The DO, Cuttack forwarded his TA claim, along with his representation, to the Regional PF Commissioner, Bhubaneswar in letter dated 12.12.2023. He having not received any reply, submitted another representation on 12.12.2023. The DO, Cuttack again sent the TA bill to the RPFC/RO, BBSR in letter dated 15.05.2024. It is alleged that despite repeated representations, his claim having not been settled, he approached this Bench in the instant OA with the prayers mentioned above, which according to him, he is entitled to under rules.

2. Respondents filed their counter stating therein that, as per the DoP&T Circular No. 19030/1/2017-E-IV dated 13.07.2017, CTG is admissible provided a change of residence is actually involved. Since, the applicant did not submit his residential address after joining at Bhubaneswar on transfer from Cuttack, the TA claim was forwarded by the office of the DO, Cuttack, which was examined and the same was rejected on 13.01.2025, copy of such rejection is appended to the reply filed by them. It is stated that the claim of his transfer from RO, BBSR to DO, Cuttack has RAVI KUMAR

5 O.A.No. 260/00243/2025 already been paid to him as per his entitlement. Accordingly, respondents have stated that the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be quashed.

3. Applicant has filed rejoinder stating therein that the DoP&T OM dated 13.07.2017 did not deal anything regarding grant of CTC equal to 80% of monthly basic pay in the event of transfer of an employee from one place to other. It is stated that when respondents processed and paid the TA claim upon his transfer from BBSR to CTC, there is no reason not to pay him such claim when he was transfer from CTC to BBSR. Further, it is stated that in his application dated 18.10.2023, he has intimated his residential address as C/o Binapani Rath, Bhagabat Sandhan, Unit- IV, Rasulgarh BBSR through procper channel, which was received by RO, BBSR on 16.11.2023. Therefore, non-paymentof his TA claim for his transfger from DO, Cuttack to RO,.BBSR is illegal and arbitrary.

4. Heard.

5. Ld. Counsel for the parties have reiterated their stand point taken in the pleadings as discussed above. After considering their RAVI KUMAR

6 O.A.No. 260/00243/2025 submissions, perused the pleadings and materials placed in support thereof.

6. From the pleadings, materials and in course of hearing, it is established that the applicant did not furnish his residential address while he was continuing at BBSR after being transferred from DO Cuttack, i.e. from 24.12.2021 to 09.01.2023. For the first time, he submitted the address in his TA bill on 24.04.2023, which he had submitted on the strength of the subsequent Office Order issued by the respondents’ department on 17.04.2023. By the time, he submitted the TA bill, he was transferred back to DO, Cuttack vide order dated 09.01.2023. The applicant himself in his application dated 1905.2023 (A/6) stated that he submitted his residential address at Bhubaneswar on 06.01.2012 but did not submit the detailed address of his residence at Bhubaneswar after his retransfer from Cuttack to Bhubaneswar and while continuing there from 24.12.2021 to 09.01.2023 and hence, prayed to condone such mistake. But, no rule is produced by him, enabling the authority to condone such inbuilt provision of furnishing of address in order to allow his CTG claim. His claim that since upon his retransfer and joining at Cuttack, he was paid the CTG claim, it RAVI KUMAR

7 O.A.No. 260/00243/2025 presupposes that he was residing at BBSR and, therefore, he ought to have been paid the CTG claim of his joining and continuance at Bhubaneswar. In my view, this is hardly of any reason to allow the prayer of the applicant because his CTG claim was processed and paid upon furnishing the address of the Cuttack. It is not the case of the applicant that furnishing of address of the stay at the transferred place is irrelevant for grant of the CTG claim nor has he produced any piece of evidence to established that he was really staying at C/o Binapani Rath, Bhagabat Sandhan, Unit-IV, Rasulgarh BBSR from 24.12.2021 to 09.01.2023. Since, the applicant himself failed to comply with the provision of rules, we do not find any flaw in the decision making process of matter in rejecting his TA claim.

7. In view of the discussions made above, this OA stands dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS)

Member (Admn.)

RK/PS RAVI KUMAR