Administrative concession under LTC/HTC can be withdrawn by policy when it is not part of the governing service rules.

Rule 44 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 limited LTC to travel within India, so the overseas-travel component introduced only by administrative circulars had no statutory force and could be withdrawn by policy. The withdrawal did not affect any enforceable service right because it removed only an extra concession outside the service rules, not the statutory LTC entitlement. In the absence of any binding bipartite settlement or express agreement, the facility remained administratively revocable. Prior notice was not mandatory because no protected right was taken away and no legal prejudice from the withdrawal was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the circular withdrawing the additional facility of overseas travel under LTC/HTC had statutory force; (ii) whether withdrawal of that facility infringed service rights or service conditions of officers of the State Bank of India; (iii) whether the absence of a bipartite or express agreement prevented withdrawal of the facility; and (iv) whether withdrawal without prior opportunity violated natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether the circular withdrawing the additional facility of overseas travel under LTC/HTC had statutory force.

Analysis: Rule 44 of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 confers LTC only for travel to the home town or any place in India by the shortest route. The overseas component was introduced only through administrative circulars and was never incorporated into the service rules. An administrative instruction contrary to the governing rule cannot acquire statutory character.

Conclusion: The circular granting overseas travel had no statutory force, and its withdrawal was legally valid.

Issue (ii): Whether withdrawal of that facility infringed service rights or service conditions of officers of the State Bank of India.

Analysis: The statutory entitlement under Rule 44 remained intact. What was withdrawn was only an additional concession outside the rule, not a service right created by the service rules. The policy change did not take away any benefit that the rule itself guaranteed.

Conclusion: The withdrawal did not infringe any enforceable service right or service condition.

Issue (iii): Whether the absence of a bipartite or express agreement prevented withdrawal of the facility.

Analysis: No settlement or agreement was shown to have conferred a binding right to overseas travel under LTC/HTC. Mere discussions or administrative practice do not convert a concession into a contractual or statutory entitlement. The facility, having been extended only by administrative route, could be withdrawn in the same manner.

Conclusion: The absence of a bipartite agreement did not invalidate the withdrawal.

Issue (iv): Whether withdrawal without prior opportunity violated natural justice.

Analysis: Natural justice is not attracted in a mechanical manner where no legal prejudice is caused and the affected benefit is only a non-statutory concession. Since the overseas-travel facility was not part of the statutory service conditions and no cognizable prejudice to a protected right was shown, issuing notice before withdrawal was not mandatory.

Conclusion: There was no violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The impugned withdrawal of the overseas-travel component of LTC/HTC was upheld as a valid policy decision, while the statutory LTC entitlement under Rule 44 continued unchanged.

Ratio Decidendi: A concession granted only by administrative instruction, and not embedded in the governing service rules or a binding settlement, can be withdrawn by policy decision without prior hearing, provided no statutory or enforceable service right is taken away.

---