Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P Stanley vs Posts on 3 August, 2023
1 OA No.310/00962/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00962/2021
Dated Thursday the 3rd day of August Two Thousand Twenty Three
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J)
1.P.Stanley,
S/o.P.Ponnusamy
2. Y.Natarajan,
S/o.K.N.Yegnesweran
3.S.R.Girija
W/o.P.M.Chandramohan
4.T.Livingstone Theodre,
S/o.D.S.Theophilus Tathanasamy
5.V.Thangamani,
W/o.S.Ganesan
6.K.Sulochana,
W/o.P.Subramanian
7.C.Nirmala
W/o.P.Ramasamy
8.S.Gitanjali
W/o.S.Kanagaraj
9.C.S.Padmini,
W/o.S.N.Srinivasan
10.S.Sathya,
w/o.D.Rajagopal
11.M.Baby,
W/o.J.John Boptist
2 OA No.310/00962/2021
12.A.Jeevarathinam,
S/o.P.K.Annamalai
13.K.Rabindraraj
S/o.R.Krishna Raj
14.M.Prema
W/o.Seeniappan
15.S.Ganesan,
S/o.Sellappan
16.D.Pankajam
W/o.S.Thiruvenkatasamy
17.K.Ramasamy
S/o.K.Kaliappan
18.R.Rajalakshmi
D/o.S.Radhakrishnan
19.V.Aruchamy
S/o.R.Vellingin
20.S.Mohanraj
S/o.S.Sivasamy
21.R.Emmanuel,
S/o.K.S.Raju
22.V.Ganesan
S/o.V.Veluchamy
23.D.Jayanthi
W/o.K.Sundararajan
24.R.Nagarajan
S/o.Ranga Asari
25.P.Rajamani
W/o.G.Karunanihi
26.V.Vedavalli,
W/o.P.Govindasamy
3 OA No.310/00962/2021
27.M.Chandra Gandhi
W/o.A.S.Balasubramanian
28.N.Sundandirakumari
W/o.S.T.Ranganathan
29.M.Tamilselvi
W/o.A.Govindaraj
30.E.S.Karaupusamy
S/o.Adayappa Konar
31.V.Rajeswari
W/o.P.Selvaraj
32.B.Sugumar
S/o.P.Balakrishnan
33.M.Sampath
S/o.M.Munusamy
34. J.Sankar
S/o.S.Jayaraman
35.S.Pannerselvam
S/o.M.Sengodan
36.P.Revathi
W/o.A.Karunakaran
37.M.Shanthi Hangodiyal
W/o.R.Jeyachandramohan ... Applicants
By Advocate M/s. S. Ramaswamyrajarajan
Vs
1. The Director General
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
4 OA No.310/00962/2021
2.The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai - 600 002.
3.The Postmaster General,
Western Region,
Coimbatore - 642 002.
4.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Coimbatore Division,
Coimbatore-641 001.
5.The Superintendent,
RMS, CB Division,
Coimbatore-641 001.
6.The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Namakkal Division,
Namakkal - 637 001. ... Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan
5 OA No.310/00962/2021
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicants have filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:
"i. To set aside the impugned orders No. B1/WP 34944/2016/Dlgs dated 09/19.07.2021, passed by the 4th respondent, all impugned orders passed in File No. B1/OA/408/R.R. Dated 10.06.2021 and No. B1/OA/408/R.R, 19.11.2020 both passed by the 5th respondent and Memo No. B1/Misc, dated 18.12.2020 passed by the 6th respondent ii. To direct the respondents to pay the difference of pay and allowances as per the details of financial implications dated 14.02.2020, given by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent in respect of each applicant and in respect of 34th applicant i.e. Mr. J. Sankar, to pay the difference of pay and allowances following the same method of calculation which was done in the case of all other applicants whose records were also not available. iii. to direct the respondents to pay the difference of pay and allowances to the applicants belonging to other division i.e. 36th and 37th applicants, following the same method of calculation which has been done in the case of applicants belonging to Coimbatore Division. iv. to pass such further or other orders of this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case with cost."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants in nutshell is as under:
The applicants were selected as Sorting Assistants and undergone necessary training at Postal Training Centres at Mysore, Madurai etc., in the years between 1982 to 1990. But, instead of appointing as regular 6 OA No.310/00962/2021 Sorting Assistants, they were kept as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) and extracted work of Sorting Assistants from them till their regularisation.
Thereafter, the applicants had filed OA No. 408/2014 before this Tribunal relying upon the order given by the CAT, Mumbai Bench in OA No. 719/1996 and on hearing the parties, this Tribunal had passed an order dated 04.08.2014 directing the respondents to pay the salary and allowances on par with the Postal Assistants to the applicants, if they performed the same work as the Postal assistants. The respondents had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras by way of filing W.P. No. 34944 of 2016 and on hearing the parties, the Hon'ble High Court had dismissed the said Writ Petition by an order dated 24.07.2019 and directed the Department to implement the order of this Tribunal within 3 months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.
3. Subsequently, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents have taken steps to implement the orders of this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. But the 4th, 5th and 6th respondents without following their superior orders, had paid a nominal amount such as Rs. 100/- to Rs. 2000/- to the applicants as arrears of pay and allowances to avoid contempt proceedings and passed the impugned orders stating that the records are not available in the case of the applicants to establish that the applicants had worked for the said period. Hence they are not entitled for the 7 OA No.310/00962/2021 payment of difference of pay and allowances for the period they served as RTP. Aggrieved by this the applicants have filed this OA seeking the above reliefs.
4. After notice, the respondents have filed their reply and submitted that though the orders has been passed by this Tribunal in earlier round of litigation in favour of the applicant and same has been decided before the Hon'ble High Court raising so many pleas including records not available in their counter before this Tribunal as well as in the pleadings before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition. However none of the courts has considered the said pleadings. Ultimately the Department decided to implement the order passed by this Tribunal. Though they find difficult in tracing the service records of the applicants however the proposal has been mooted through the Assistant Director General (SP) to the Chief Post Master General and subsequently which is forwarded to the Ministry of Communication for their approval the same has been sanctioned. However, on the basis of the available records in the office of the respondents the said amount has been worked out and released to the applicants and the communication has been made to the applicants by letter dated 30.7.2020 and instructed them to submit a details/records showing that they have performed the duties of sorting assistant while working as RTP before regularisation and the period engaged as such within 11.08.2020 for implementation of orders passed in WP 34944/2016. 8 OA No.310/00962/2021 None of the applicant has submitted the details. Hence the respondents are not in a position to work out the said claim as directed by this Tribunal as well as Hon'ble High court while granting the relief relying upon the various orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench way back in the year 1996 and subsequently hence the request of the applicants has not been considered.
5. Heard both sides. Perused the OA and other connected records.
6. It is not in dispute that applicants have worked in the office of the respondents RTP before 1989 prior to their regularisation as pakka postal Assistant relying upon the orders passed by the co-ordinate bench in the matter of similarly situated employees this Tribunal vide its order dated 04.08.2015 in OA 408/2014 directed to pay salary and allowances of Postal Assistant to the applicant if they performed the same work as the Postal Assistant for the period they were so engaged, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. And it is made clear that the Court cannot direct creation of posts, particularly with retrospective effect and in excess of the sanctioned strength.
7. The respondents have challenged the said orders before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP No. 34944/2016 though taking specific plea pertains to the non-availability of service records of the applicants prior to 1989 in respect of RTP service and pressed the objection on delay and latches and non availability of records. However High Court dismissed 9 OA No.310/00962/2021 the WP of the respondent department on 24.07.2019.
8. As per the legal advise of the Ministry of Law and Justice the respondents have decided to implement the said orders.
9. It is to be noted that for the implementation of the order when file has been initiated by this letter dated 14.02.2020 by the Assistant Director (Staff) from the office of the Post master General, Western Region, Tamilnadu Coimbatore has furnished the revised financial implication reported by the concerned division in detail. He has submitted the details of the employees along with financial implication with remarks in the matter of records available and not available and worked out the said benefits approximately and processed the said file for further approval and sanction and upon recommendation of the Chief Postmaster General for implementation of the CAT Orders to ADG (SPN) vide its letter dated 01.05.2020 forwarded the said proposal to the Ministry R-1 and the Ministry on 11.06.2020 has approved the same with an direction to implement the order passed by the Hon;ble High Court in the matter of applicants and 77 others. However the authorities have not been acted as per approval on report and recommendation given by the Assistant Director General as well as CPMG accordingly and they have calculated some meagre amount on their own, is totally contradictory to the said sanction which does not sustain in the eyes of the law.
10. It is to be noted that so far the applicants have not submitted any 10 OA No.310/00962/2021 documentary proof of their service particulars rendered by them prior to 1989 to enable the respondents to calculate the hours 4 days of service of the applicants. Moreover the respondents have even earlier OA by filing detail reply have raised objection on the ground of no specific pleadings of period in which applicants have engaged as Substitute and non-availability of record of service particulars and same is reiterated before Hon'ble High Court in WP and in the absence of said particular benefit cannot be granted suo moto to the applicant as claimed. Therefore the applicant be given the benefits as per the approval of R-1 to the calculation of the Assistant Director General.
11. Hence action of the respondents not act as per approval of R-1 is bad in law. Perse it is against the order passed by this Tribunal which is upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The respondents are directed to pay the remaining balance amount as per the sanction to the calculation sheet submitted by the Assistant Director on report from the concerned authorities within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
12. OA is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Lata Baswaraj Patne) Member (J) 03.08.2023 AS