Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
L Shivananda vs Dept Of Posts on 3 April, 2025
1
OA.No.117/2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00117/2017
ORDER RESERVED ON 24.02.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 03.04.2025
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
L.Shivananda, S/o L.Nagaraju
Aged about 34 years
Occ: Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster
Alwalpad B.O., a/w Gadwal H.O.
Mahabubnagar Division. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Sri M.Venkanna)
Vs.
1. The Union of India represented by
Its Secretary, Ministry of Communication and IT
Department of Posts -India
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi -110001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General
Talangana Circle, "Dak Sadan"
Abids, Hydeabad - 500001.
3. The Postmaster General
Hyderabad Region
Dak Sadan, Abids
Hyderabad - 500001.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Mahbubnagar Division
Mahabubnagar - 509001. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Sri V.Vinod Kumar, Sr.PC for CG)
*******
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.117/2017
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
".... to quash and set aside the impugned orders issued by the 4th Respondent vide Memo No.A-18 / GADWAL HO dated 20.01.2017 being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the clarificatory orders issued by the 4th Respondent vide Memo No.5-1/07-WS-I dated 15.10.2012 and also against the principles of natural justice and also discriminatory violating the principles laid down under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to protect the TRCA of the applicant in the enhanced 5th slab of TRCA prior to the impugned orders and not to reduce the pay of the applicants in the name of the re-fixation in the interest f justice, and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. This Original Application is filed challenging the order of the 4th Respondent/SPO, Mahabubnagar, Dvn., vide Memo No.A-
18/GADWAL HO, dt.20.01.2017, reducing the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA), despite the direction of this Tribunal in OA.No.1001/2014, vide order, dt.15.11.2016, directing the Respondents to issue a notice as mandated by the Circular, vide Memo No.5-1/07-WS-I, dt.15.10.2012, in the event of the Respondents being of the opinion that the TRCA has to be revised.
ii. The applicant has argued that instead of following their own instructions, the Respondents have sought to reduce the TRCA on the ground that certain items of works should not have been included for Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.117/2017 computation of workload. They have not carried out any verification nor reassessed the workload according to their own version of excluding the NREGS workload w.e.f. 1.12.2009. The arbitrary and illegal action of the Respondents to reduce the TRCA, vide the impugned order, dt.20.01.2017, is contrary to the rules governing the payment of TRCA to the GDS and as well as the orders of this Tribunal. On the directions of this Tribunal, a Notice No.A- 18/GADWAL HO, dt.03.01.2017, was issued and the impugned order, dt.20.01.2017, was passed while admitting the relief granted by this Tribunal so far as the Recovery is concerned but the reduction would be effective from January, 2017. This being partial compliance with the order, reduction is again to be effected vide the impugned order.
3. The grounds raised for relief by the applicant include the following:
i. The applicant, like all the Branch Postmasters, is entitled to notice when his pay slab under TRCA is to be affected by the reduction in pay and allowances, which is an infringement of his civil right. It amounts to violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, as the basic principle of audi alteram partem was not observed by the Respondents.
ii. The 4th Respondent, despite the clarificatory orders of the 1st Respondent that no reduction of TRCA shall be done even if there is a drop in the workload, and the concerned GDS employees' pay may have to be protected for one year and he or she must be given an opportunity to increase the workload, so as to maintain the TRCA or Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.117/2017 to make an endeavour to increase it and only, thereafter, the Respondents shall carry out the verification of workload and revise the TRCA according to the work load and considered either to reduce or increase as the case may be. The 4th Respondent, without following the instructions of the 1st Respondent, has directly reduced the TRCA of the applicant arbitrarily, vide his impugned orders, dt.18.07.2014. The beneficial construction of the said order may have to be extended to the applicant.
iii. The Circle Postal Accounts had already carried out cent percent verification of fixation of TRCA in respect of all the Branch Postmasters in the Division and found it to be correct. The 4th Respondent cannot arbitrarily reduce the wages with a blanket and summary order reducing the TRCA of the applicant. iv. Recovery was sought from the applicant's pay and allowance, pertaining to the period when the applicant was not at all a BPM of the Alwalpad B.O., as he had assumed the charge of BPM only w.e.f. 26.07.2010, whereas the alleged excess payment for the period prior to his assignment as GDS BPM, w.e.f. 1.12.2009, was ordered to be recovered.
v. The Respondents, without following the directions of the Tribunal, passed the impugned order, without caring for their own instructions, dt.15.10.2012, as well as the directions, dt.15.11.2016, of this Tribunal passed in OA.No.1001/2014.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.117/2017
4. It is seen that this Tribunal, in OA.No.1001/2014, had observed, vide the order, dt.15.11.2016, as follows:
"17. As far as the first issue of recovery of excess amount is concerned, it is a matter of record that the higher TRCA for BPM, Alwalpad BO, was fixed with effect from 10.12.2009, whereas the applicant has joined the post only on26.07.2010. Thus, the higher slab was already sanctioned for BPM, Alwalpad BO, even before the joining of the applicant in the post. To that extent, it is clear that the Respondents have fixed the TRCA for BPM, Alwalpad, on their own and that it would be improper to recover excess amounts from 01.12.2009 when the applicant his undisputedly joined the post on 26.07.2010. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Others Vs Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., (2015(4) SCC 334), has held as follows:
12. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship, which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to herein above, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law:
(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service).
(ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery.
(iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued.
(iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post.
(v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.
As the applicant is a Gramin Dak Sevak, which is even below a Group-C employee, he would be squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Hence, the action of recovery of excess amount would not be sustainable.
18. On the second issue; the Respondents would contend that the revision / reduction of TRCA was necessitated on account of erroneous fixation and not on account of reduction in workload and the instructions in Annexure-II dated 15.10.2012, would not give the applicant any protection. It is well settled that in keeping with the principles of natural justice, a notice would have to be issued before taking up any revision of pay and allowances / benefits, which would be to the disadvantage of an individual. The principles of natural justice would require a notice to be issued indicating the reasons for the proposed reduction. The applicant would also be entitled to make a representation, if so advised, against such action. Admittedly, the Respondents have not put the applicant on notice before initiating action for reduction / refixation of this TRCA.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.117/2017
19. In the result, the Annexure A-I memo is quashed and set aside. The interim orders of this Tribunal dated 01.09.2014 staying further recovery of the amounts already paid is made absolute. The applicant shall also be entitled to refund of any amounts already recovered. There shall also be a direction to the Respondents to issue a show cause notice to the applicant indicating the reasons for revision / reduction of his TRCA. The applicant shall also be afforded an opportunity for making a representation and shall also be given a personal hearing before passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with rules.
Two months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is granted for compliance."
5. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed a written reply. In compliance with the order, dt.15.11.2016, passed in OA.No.1001/2014, by this Tribunal, the Respondents have filed a copy of instructions, dt.18.02.2025, showing implementation of the order as follows:-
"6. The order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA.No.1001/2014, is implemented as follows:
1. In the result, the Annexure-I : After affording reasonable memo is quashed and set opportunity by issuing show cause aside notice dated 03.01.2017 to the applicant and on considering the same, a speaking order vide Memo dated 20.01.2017 was issued by the 4th Respondent.
The interim orders of this : Recovery of rs.81,194/- (Rs. Eighty Tribunal dated 01.09.2014 One Thousand One Hundred and staying further recovery of the Ninety Four only) has been stopped amounts already paid is made as ordered.
absolute The applicant shall also be : An amount of Rs.1500/- was entitled to refund of any recovered from the applicant's amounts already recovered TRCA for July-14 and Rs.1500/-
from TRCA for Aug-2014. On receipt of Interim Order dated 01.09.2014 in the OA 1001/2014, the recovery was stopped. However, an amount of Rs.3000/- recovered from the applicant has been refunded vide Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar Division Memo No.A-18/Gadwal H.O., dated 14.02.2025 (Copy enclosed) There shall also be a direction : A show cause notice was issued to to the Respondents to issue a the applicant vide Superintendent of show cause notice to the Post Offices, Mahabubnagar applicant indicating the Division Letter No.A-18/Gadwal Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.117/2017 reasons for revision / H.O., dated 03.01.2017 (copy reduction of his TRCA enclosed) The applicant shall also be : In response to the show cause notice, afforded an opportunity for the applicant submitted his making a representation and representation vide letter dated shall also be given a personal 16.01.2017 (copy enclosed), hearing before passing a addressed to the Superintendent of reasoned and speaking order Post Offices, Mahabubnagar in accordance with rules Division.
After considering show cause notice issued and the representation of the applicant, a speaking order was issued vide Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar Division Memo NO.A-18/Gadwal H.O., dated 20.01.2017 (copy enclosed)
6. As regards Personal Hearing, it is submitted that -
"7.Personal hearing: A show cause notice dated 03.01.2017 was issued to the applicant, and he submitted his representation dated 16.01.2017. In his representation, the applicant did not request a personal hearing. Hence, a personal hearing was not afforded to him before passing the speaking order vide Memo No.A-18/Gadwal H.O., dated 20.01.2017."
7. Respondents have further submitted that, aggrieved by the order contained in Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar Division, Memo No.A-
18/Gadwal H.O., dated 20.01.2017, the applicant approached this Tribunal in the present OA No.117/2017, seeking to quash and set aside the said order. The applicant also requested the Tribunal to direct the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar Division, to protect his TRCA in the enhanced 5th slab of TRCA, as it was prior to the impugned order, and not to reduce his pay in the name of refixation. Additionally, the applicant sought interim relief for the suspension of Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar Division Memo No.A-18/Gadwal H.O., dated 20.01.2017, and requested that no recovery be made from his TRCA. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted interim relief.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.117/2017
8. The interim order of this Tribunal was implemented by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar, vide Letter No.A-18/GADWAL H.O., dated 12.05.2017, directing the Head Postmaster, Gadwal Head Post Office, to enforce the Tribunal's order by suspending the recovery of excess paid TRCA.
9. Since, the orders of the Tribunal have been implemented, and in view of the facts submitted above, it is prayed by the Respondents that the OA may be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material on record.
11. It is found that, in OA.No.1001/2014, vide para-15 of the order, dt.15.11.2016, this Tribunal has already addressed the points being agitated here, as follows -
"15. Having considered the submissions on both sides and also the material on record, it is seen that the impugned action based on Audit objection of the Internal Audit Inspection Party is twofold -
(i) Recovery of excess amount already paid up to 30.06.2014
(ii) Reduction and re-fixation of TRCA of the applicant from July, 2014.
12. No new ground/issue has been raised by the applicant in the present OA as far as the matter of recovery of excess amount and refixation of TRCA is concerned. However, it is noted that the order, dt.20.01.2017, passed on the representation, dt.16.01.2017, is highly cryptic, despite the claim that the SPOs, MBNR Divn., has passed a speaking order. It does not address the points raised by the applicant in his representation, dt.16.01.2017. Also the argument that, since the applicant had not asked for it, he was not afforded an opportunity to be heard, is not acceptable as it is contrary to the directions of this Tribunal in OA.No.1001/2014, supra. Such a stand shows disregard of judicial orders.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.117/2017
13. Having gone through the detailed order in OA.No.1001/2014, passed by another Bench of this Tribunal, it is felt that there might not have been need to consider the same pleadings all over again. But, on account of the cryptic nature of the order, dt.20.01.2017, passed by the Supdt. of Post Offices, Mahabubnagar Division/R4, the same is quashed and set aside, The orders passed on 15.11.2016, in OA.No.1001/2014, are reiterated and the Respondents are once again directed "to pass a reasoned and detailed order, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant, in accordance with rules." The above exercise, in respect of the representation, dt.16.01.2014, of the applicant, shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in the present OA. The IR, dt.16.02.2017, shall continue till the disposal of the representation, in the above terms.
14. With the above observations, the OA is disposed of. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) Administrative Member 03.04.2025 /ps/ Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.04.04 16:03:07+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0