Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Swapan Kumar Bhattacharjee vs D/O India Post on 15 October, 2020
1 o.a. 350.00950.2020 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA No. O.A. 350/00950/2020 Dated of order: 15.10.2,020 Present : HonT)le Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member } Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member] i Shri Swapan Kumar Bhattacharjee, Son of Late Panchanan Bhattacharjee, Aged about 66 years, Residing at Village & Post Office - Jalchak, Police Station - Pingla, District ~ Midnapore, Pin-721155 and '■ Retired from service while working to I The post of GDSMD at Jalchak Branch Post Office s Midnapore Division under the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Midnapore Division, Midnapore. ri-
... Applicant VERSUS-
1. Union of India, Service through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of: Posts, 20, Sanchar Bhawan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General, West Bengal Circle, Yogayog Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata - 700 012.
3. The Post Master General, South Bengal Region, Yogayog Bhawan, Kolkata-700 012.
4. The Additional Director of Postal Serviced West Bengal Circle, I South Bengal Region, I 2 o.a. 350.00950.2020 Yogayog Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata - 700 012.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Midnapore Division, Midnapore. Pin-.721101.
6. The Inspector of Posts, Balichak Sub-Division, Ghatai-721214, District - Midnapore.
7. The Senior Postmaster, Midnapore Head Office, ' District - Midnapore - 721101.
8. The Sub-Divisional Inspector (P), Department of Posts, Balichak Sub-Division, Balichak-721124, District - Midnapore.
Respondents For the Applicants Mr. P.C. Das, Counsel Ms. T. Maity, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. Samir Paul, Counsel ORDER I Oral) Per Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member:
The applicant in the instant O.A., had served as a GDS.MD, stncl, reportedly, was discharging duties and functions in the vacant po^t of GDSMD in Jalchak Branch Post Office under Midnapore Head Officfco in.
3ore Division. Being aggrieved with the fact that, deL^ite the Midrta I discharging such duties in compliance to'orders of higher authoritiejs, Itlo was deprived of appropriate pay and allowances, the applican lasts approached this Tribunal with the instant O.A.
2. The relief, as sought for in this O.A., is as follows:-
3 o.a. 350.00950.2020 "(a) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority to disburse the actual pay and allowances in connection to the post of GDSMD which your applicant is discharging which is a vacant post as per 'the direction of the respondent 'authority which is appearing at Annexure A-l of this original application and to give the benefit of pay with effect from 17.12.2011 to 29.04.2019 in respect of TRCA (Time-
Related Continuity Allowance) which was less paid and the arrear Bonus of 2016-17 and arrear payment of 7th CPC as per the Report of Kamlesh Chandra Committee in favour of the applicant along with all consequential benefits which your applicant is regarding for entitled to;
(b) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority to give .the benefit of pay with effect from 17.12.2011 to 29.04.2019 in respect of TRCA (Time-Related Continuity Allowance) which was less paidj and the arrear Bonus of 2016-17 and arrear payment of 7lh CPC as pen thej Report of Kamlesh Chandra Committee in favour of the applicant along with all consequential benefits which your applicant is regarding for lentitied to in the light of the decision passed by this Hon hie Tribunal in me case of Radhashyam Das -vs.- Union of India & ors. in O.A. Nor. 350/1376 of 2018 being Annexure A-3 of this original application and hpi the light of the implementation order issued by the same Division of Pos't Offices dated 13.12.2018 being Annexure A-4 of this original ap plication."
3. Heard both Id. Counsel, examined'/.documents on record. This matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
4. The submissions of Ld. Counsel for the applicant is, that ti e applicant, who functioned as a GDSMD prior to his retirement, wa_s directed from time to time by his higher authorities to discharge dutifes i and responsibilities in the vacant post of GDSMD in Midnapore HeeLcL Office.
The applicant would contend that he is entitled to approprisLlie payment of TRCA, arrear bonus of 2016-17, as well as arrears of 7th GIPG as per the report of the Kamlesh Chandra Committee. The respon' nt authorities, however, not only deprived the applicants of such amouni'ts but also reduced the applicant's pay by more than Rs. 4324/- per mJra1:3n. .
w.e.f. 17.12.2011 to 29.04.2019 in an arbitrary and discriminator/y"
manner.
The applicants would further aver that, an identical issue wets decided upon by this Tribunal - in O.A. No. 350/01376/20 13 (Radhashyam Das v. Union of India & ors.j which was disposed of 'bry Ci 5, 4 o.a. 350.00950.2020 J I the Tribunal vide orders dated 28.9.2018 and, in compliance thereof, the Office of the respondent No. 5, who is the Sr. Superintendent of Pos Offices, had decided in favour of Shri Radhashyam Das and ha i i disbursed arrear payments to Shri Radhashyam Das (Ahnexure A-4 t L •.V the O.A.) concluding as follows:-
"6. In the view of the above, it has been decided that the benefit of ovrin TRCA i.e. Rs. 4830/- is admissible to Sri Das while he was working as GDS BPM Fatechak B.O. since 28.3.2015. Thus the concerned D.D.O. i.e. Postmaster, Midnapore H.O. is hereby directed to take up the matter separately not in general i.e. it would be applicable only to the applicant (Sri Das) ap.<3. settle the case immediately. The representation dated 16.5.2017 preferred fh>y Sri Radhashyam Das, GDSBPM, Taladiha B.O. is accordingly disposed of." I i
5. Ld. Counsel would aver that'the applicant had represented forTL 5.3.2019 (Annexure A-2 to the O.A.) praying for arrear pay and allowances w.e.f. 17.12.2011 to 29.04.2019 in the light of decision's 11 the matter of Shri Radhashyam Das. As such represental arrived at i ion remains pending, however, Ld. Counsel would urge for directions! on early disposal of such prayer.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents would not object to disposal of* such representation in accordance with law, subject to similarity o ■tine;
applicant's circumstances with that of Shri Radhashyam Das.
7. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter, eLnd, with the- consent of the parties, we would hereby direct thie concernei/addressee respondent authority to decide on the I said representation (if received at his end), and, in accordance witn. 1Q.W, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy i f tlriis order.
The concerned respondent authority should convey his decision, in the form of a reasoned and speaking order to the applicant. I In case the applicant is able to conclusively establish his' cledm, and, iflhis grievance is found to be genuine, the respondent aiatlmor'itry' y ■ be \ i * :>*.« \ I 5 o.a. 350.00950.2020 shall further decide on his entitlements and arrange to disburse same within a further period of 8 weeks thereafter.
X -.'V & v 8. With hese directions, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs.
!■
✓
K
r /
(Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha Banerjee)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
' Sr.
SP ■: •
I
<;•*
r •
I
v*