Kerala High Court
The Superintendent Of Post Offices vs C.D. Syamala on 19 July, 2013
Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY,THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/21ST MAGHA, 1935
OP (CAT).No. 20 of 2014 (Z)
--------------------------------------
[AGAINST THE ORDER IN O.A.NO. 586/2011 DATED 19-07-2013 OF THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH]
............
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------------------------
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
IDUKKI DIVISION, THODUPUZHA - 685 584.
2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
BY SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, C.G.C.
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
---------------------------------------
C.D. SYAMALA,
WORKING AS G.D.S B.P.M, POTTENKAD P.O,
RESIDING AT KODOOR HOUSE, BAISON VALLEY, POTTENKAD,
CHITHIRAPURAM - 685 565.
BY ADVS. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN,
SRI.P.C.SEBASTIAN.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
O.P.(CAT).NO.20/2014-Z:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE O.A NO.686/2011 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OA NO.586/2011 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN OA 586/2011 FILED BY
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.7.13 IN OA 586/2011 OF
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 78/2010 DATED 17.6.2011 OF THE
HON'BLE TRIBUNAL.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
Prv.
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JJ.
....................................................................
OP(CAT) No.20 of 2014
....................................................................
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
1.Postal Department challenges a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Respondent was a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster in the N.R.City Post Office. She was transferred as GDS BPM, Pottenkad, within the same recruitment unit and which is near to her matrimonial residence. She was entitled to protection of the TRCA drawn by her in NR City Post Office, since that was higher than the TRCA for the post in Pottenkad. Protection was granted. Thereafter, TRCA scales were revised on the recommendation of R.S.Nataraja Murthy Committee. Revisions were also given effect to. Later, the Department took the stand that TRCA protected for the petitioner at Pottenkad was excessive and such fixation and protection of TRCA was erroneous. They, thereafter, issued an order purporting to correct that purported error. The Tribunal interfered with that holding that the petitioner was entitled to OP(CAT)20/14 -2- protection of her TRCA at N.R.City Post Office rates on her transfer and appointment as GDS BPM, Pottenkad. That cannot be found fault with, having regard to the Full Bench decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.270 of 2006 and connected cases - order dated 14.11.2008.
2.Before us, a slightly different argument is raised. That does not find reflected in the Department's pleadings before the Tribunal. In its nutshell, that submission is that the fixation of TRCA of the respondent/applicant while in N.R.City Post Office was itself higher than what was due, and the resultant revision following the R.S.Nataraja Murthy Committee report also was granted in excess. Even if this argument is to be upheld, difference would be only around `20/-, at the initial stage, which may go up to `108/-, going by R.S.Nataraja Murthy Committee report. Though the learned Central Government Counsel pleaded that the Department may be given the liberty to tinker with the TRCA to that extent, in our view, it is too late in the day, since the petitioner entered N.R.City Post Office in September, 1983 and was transferred to Pottenkad in 2009. The financial implications, as noted herein, OP(CAT)20/14 -3- are too feeble that we would hold it that there is any injustice to the Department. Not only that, no such plea was raised before the Tribunal. We do not think that this aspect of the issue arises as an independent issue for consideration in exercise of authority under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, this original petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed, however clarifying that all issues of law considered and decided in this judgment as well as in the order of the Tribunal, that we affirm hereby, relate only to protection of higher TRCA of a transferred employee, when the transfer is to a Post Office or to a post which carries a lower TRCA and in terms of the Postal Department's order granting such protection and covered by the judgment of the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.270 of 2006 and connected cases - order dated 14.11.2008.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE) jg