Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Chandra Shekhar Rajput vs D/O Post on 30 January, 2026
O.A./905/2017
(Reserved on 20.01.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
****
Original Application No.905 of 2017
This the 30th Day of January 2026.
Hon'ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)
Chandra Shekhar Rajput S/O Sri Gaya Prasads R/O Ward No-7 Shankar Ganj
Jhinjhak Distt-Kanpur (Dehat) -209302
....Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. S M Abbas Naqvi
Versus
1- Union of India through Secretary of Communication Dak Bhawan
Department of Posts New Delhi 110001.
2. The P.M.G. Kanpur 208001
3. The Superintendent of Post offices Kanpur (M) division Kanpur 208001.
4. The Sub Divisional Inspector (Posts) Bilaur Distt-Kanpur Nagar
5. The Chief Post Master Kanpur Head Post office Kanpur 208001
....Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. K K Ojha
ORDER
Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.
2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-
"(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by the respondent No-2 with all the consequential benefits ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 1 of 7 O.A./905/2017
(b)- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondents to pay the differences of salary to the applicant of the posts of Transit Mail Peon (TMP Jhinjhak Rasulabad Runner line, Chaukidar ( Group D) Jhinjhak, Transit mail Peon Jhinjhak-Mangalpur & Town Post ManJhinjhak on which applicant performed the duty wef 27.06.1991 το 03.02.2017 independently total period 25 years 7 months 16 days with all other consequential benefit like differences of bonus.
(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondents to observe in group D cadre & treated the officiating service as regular in Group D/MTS
(d) Issue any order/direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(e) Award the cost of petition to the applicant.."
3. The applicant was initially recruited as an Extra Departmental Agent (EDA) and was subsequently appointed to the Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS) cadre at Jhinjhak, assuming charge on 27.06.1991. Respondent No. 4 directed the applicant to perform officiating duties of Group 'D'/Mail Carrier (Runner on the Jhinjhak-Rasulabad mail line). The applicant performed these duties from 27.06.1991 to 31.01.2009. During this period, the respondents paid only the EDA Allowance/Time-Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) applicable to the EDA/GDS cadre, instead of the officiating pay of the Group 'D'/MTS cadre. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to the salary difference under FR-49. On 28.01.2009, Respondent No. 4 issued Order No. A/Ahibaran Singh/09 directing the applicant to take charge as Chaukidar of Jhinjhak Post Office. The applicant performed officiating duties as Chaukidar from 31.01.2009 up to 24.09.2016, working 15 hours daily, but was not paid officiating salary. Thereafter, pursuant to telephonic directions of the respondents, the applicant performed officiating duty of Group 'D' Mail Runner from 24.09.2016 to 24.12.2016. Subsequently, the applicant served on the mail runner line Jhinjhak-Mangalpur from 24.12.2016 to 20.01.2017 and as Village Postman (Departmental) Jhinjhak-Kanpur (Dehat) from 20.01.2017 to 23.01.2017. In all instances, he was paid only GDS TRCA instead of the minimum pay scale for Group 'D'/MTS or Postman. The applicant submitted a representation dated 23.01.2017 requesting payment of the ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 2 of 7 O.A./905/2017 officiating pay differences under FR-49 and the Directorate of Posts, New Delhi circular dated 12.04.1991. Respondent No. 4 sought explanations from the applicant on 08.03.2017 regarding his representation to higher authorities. In response to an RTI application, Respondent No. 3, in reply dated 13.04.2017, confirmed that the Jhinjhak-Rasulabad Mail Runner line was departmental, the post of Chaukidar of Jhinjhak had been abolished, and the Mangalpur-Jhinjhak Mail Runner line was managed by the GDS cadre. The applicant also filed a review petition dated 17.07.2017 before Respondent No. 4 against Respondent No. 2's impugned order dated 10.02.2017.
4. The applicant has relied upon the following judicial precedents:
(i) CAT judgment in Ramesh Prasad Srivastava vs. UoI & Others (OA No. 573/2015, dated 14.07.2016);
(ii) Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad judgment in Bittan Devi vs. UoI & Others (W.P. No. 38446/1998, dated 28.07.2009), wherein service as Chaukidar was held to be regular and family pension was sanctioned; and
(iii) Apex Court judgment in Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. UoI & Others (1996 SCC (L&S) 464).
5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, stating that the applicant was engaged as a GDS Packer/GDS Runner at Jhinjhak Sub Post Office vide SDI(P) Jhinjhak memo dated 20.06.1991 and has been paid the admissible TRCA for five hours daily throughout his tenure, which the applicant accepted without objection. The respondents submit that the applicant was never engaged in any departmental Group D/MTS posts, including the mail runner lines between Jhinjhak-Rasulabad and Jhinjhak-Mangalpur, as these lines do not have established departmental posts. They further submit that the post of Contingent Paid (CP) Chaukidar, held by Shri Ahibaran Singh, was abolished upon his retirement on 31.01.2009, and no substitutes could be engaged due to the ban on employment of casual ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 3 of 7 O.A./905/2017 labour w.e.f. 29.11.1989. Accordingly, the applicant cannot claim CP Chaukidar or Gr.D./MTS pay. It is further submitted that any direct representations submitted by the applicant to higher authorities, including the DG Post and the Hon'ble Prime Minister, bypassing the proper departmental channels, was irregular. The Jhinjhak-Rasulabad mail line was managed by MTS Packers, and the applicant's duty hours was limited to five hours per day, whereas departmental Gr.D./MTS posts require eight hours. The applicant was never engaged as a village postman or in any other departmental post claimed in the OA. Reliance on judicial precedents such as Ramesh Prasad Srivastava and Bittan Devi is misplaced, as the facts of those cases are not applicable. The respondents contend that the OA is misconceived, no relief, including pay differences or regularization, is due, and pray that the OA be dismissed and any interim orders vacated.
6. In reply to the counter affidavit, the applicant submits that the averments made therein, except those specifically admitted, are denied. It is reiterated that the applicant was directed to perform duties of departmental Group 'D'/MTS posts, including the Jhinjhak-Rasulabad Mail Runner line, Chaukidar (Jhinjhak), Jhinjhak-Mangalpur Mail Runner line, and Village Postman, but was paid only the admissible GDS TRCA. The respondents have failed to place on record the establishment details, statements of lines and stages, or sanctioned strength of the Mail Runner lines of Kanpur (M) Postal Division to substantiate their claim that no departmental posts existed. The contention that the applicant's duty hours was limited to five hours per day is incorrect. On the contrary, the applicant performed duties for more than eight hours per day, as detailed in the OA. The submission that the post of CP Chaukidar stood abolished does not absolve the respondents from paying officiating pay when the applicant was directed to perform Chaukidar duties by the competent authority. Payment of TRCA under compulsion does not bar the applicant from claiming pay differences under FR-49. Any explanations sought from the applicant during the ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 4 of 7 O.A./905/2017 pendency of the matter was arbitrary and illegal. The judicial precedents relied upon by the applicant squarely apply to the present facts. Therefore, the respondents' contentions are wholly untenable, and the applicant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
7. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused materials on record.
8. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as an ED Runner (now GDS) on 27.06.1991 and he was asked to perform the officiating duty of Group D/Mail Carrier on the Jhinjhak-Rasulabad mail line for mail exchange. He performed this duty till 31.01.2009, i.e., for 17 years, 7 months and 4 days, but was paid only TRCA.
9. Further, from 31.01.2009 till 24.09.2016, i.e., for 6 years, 8 months and 24 days, he performed the officiating duty of Chowkidar, where again he was paid only the TRCA of a GDS employee. Later, he also performed the duty of mail runner from Jhinjhak to Rasulabad and also from Jhinjhak to Mangalpur.
10. It is the applicant's contention that all along he has been asked to work against regular sanctioned posts of Group D whereas he was a GDS employee. Therefore, in respect of these duties performed by him, he should have been paid the officiating salary of Group D cadre and, in terms of FR 49, he is entitled to get the difference of pay, i.e., Group D pay minus the TRCA (which was actually given to him for his work as a GDS).
11. As per the respondents, the applicant was engaged as an ED Runner, now called GDS Runner, and he has performed the duty of GDS Runner at Jhinjhak PO for 5 hours a day, for which TRCA was being paid to him. There is no establishment of a departmental Group D runner in the mail conveyance line between Jhinjhak to Rasulabad and Jhinjhak to Mangalpur. Further, the post of Chowkidar was abolished after the CP Chowkidar was discharged from service, as there was a ban on employment of casual labourers after 29.11.1989 as per Memo No. 45-56-SPB-I dated 01.03.1993. The applicant was, ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 5 of 7 O.A./905/2017 therefore, engaged to perform the duty of Chowkidar as a GDS employee only.
12. The applicant has relied on this Tribunal's judgment dated 14.07.2016 passed in OA No. 330/00573/2015 (Ramesh Prasad Srivastava vs UOI). In this case, while the applicant was a GDS employee, he was deputed for some time to work against a regular Group D post as Transit Mail Peon for carrying Speed Post bags. Since the applicant worked against a higher post, he was given the difference of pay and allowances of the said post as per rules.
13. As far as the second relied upon judgment, i.e., the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad's judgment dated 28.07.2009 passed in WP No. 38446 of 1998, Bittan Devi vs UOI & Others, is concerned, this was a family pension case of an employee who was a casual labourer and had acquired temporary status. The present case is that of a GDS employee.
14. The third relied upon judgment by the applicant is that of Apex Court judgment in Yashwant Hari Katakkar vs. UoI& Others (1996 SCC (L&S) 464). This also is the case of pensionary benefits of an employee who worked as casual labour for 18 ½ years and not of a GDS.
15. The subject matter of the circular quoted by the applicant, i.e., 45-95/87-SPB-1 dated 12.04.1991, relates to Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme. This is a scheme drawn pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders regarding conferring of temporary status to casual labourers and is applicable to casual labourers of the Department. The applicant herein is a GDS employee employed to work only for 4 to 5 hours a day.
16. The applicant in the present case has been appointed as a GDS employee. GDS employees are governed by separate GDS service and appointment rules and work for only 4 to 5 hours a day. The applicant, for the most part of his career, has been deputed as a GDS ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 6 of 7 O.A./905/2017 Runner to carry out mail exchange. The lines on which he has been deputed involve work for 5 hours, as mentioned in the RTI reply sought by the applicant. Since the work is of 5 hours, a GDS has been deployed and accordingly the applicable TRCA has been paid.
17. As far as the duty of Chowkidar is concerned, the applicant has been deployed to the post of CP Chowkidar after the said post was abolished following the discharge of the incumbent Chowkidar on attaining the age of 60 years. The applicant, therefore, while having been deployed as a Chowkidar, was not working against a regular sanctioned post of Chowkidar. As per the respondents, he was deployed as a GDS to work against that post and was paid the applicable TRCA for the same. While the applicant has claimed that he worked for almost 15 hours daily as a Chowkidar and also for 24 hours on holidays, there is no record to prove the number of hours he actually put in while performing his duties as Chowkidar. In the absence of such record, and also in view of the fact that the post of Chowkidar had been abolished, there is nothing on record to show the number of hours put in by the applicant as Chowkidar. In case there was any record showing the duty hours put in as Chowkidar, the same should have been made available to the Tribunal.
18. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Tribunal finds no merit in the instant case and, as such, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands dismissed.
19. All pending MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Manju Pandey) Member (A) /Arpita/ ARPITA SRIVASTAV Page 7 of 7