Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sunil Kumar vs D/O Post on 4 April, 2024
1- O.A. No. 498/2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/00498/2018
Pronounced on: 04.04.2024
Reserved on: 18.03.2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Sunil Kumar, age 60 years, S/o Sh. Mansha Ram, GDSMC/MD, V&PO
Nirjan under Asstt. Supdt, of Posts Jind, O/o Senior Superintendent of
Posts, Karnal, R/o H. No. 432 Vishawkarma colony Aara Road Jind,
District Jind, Haryana.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Jai Bhagwan Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, Haryana Circle, Ambala Cantt.
3. Senior Superintendent of Posts, Karnal Division, Karnal.
... .Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC and
Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To set aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure A-1) issued by respondent no. 3.
(ii) The respondents no. 1 to 3 be directed to grant the applicant Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) at the 2- O.A. No. 498/2018 rate of Rs.1740-30-2640 w.e.f. 01.03.1998 in terms of the instructions and decision of this Tribunal in the case of Satyavir Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 70-HR-2006 decided on 02.03.2007).
(iii) The directions be issued to the respondents to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the arrears of the TRCA from the date it became due up to the date of actual payment.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) on 14.09.1979 in Post Office of B.O. Nirjan, District Jind. He was given the extra charge of the post of Extra Departmental Runner B.O. Manoharpur, Haibatpur and Khokari in the year 1985 and since then he is performing the duties of the same also. The applicant has been working as EDDA/EDR for more than 07 hours daily since 1985 in the post office of Village Nirjan, District Jind. The plea of the applicant is that since he is working more than 3 hours and 45 minutes per day, therefore, he is entitled to Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) (formerly called Consolidated Allowance) @ Rs.1740-30-2640 w.e.f. 01.03.1998, in terms of Instructions/policy issued by the Director General Posts vide his order dated 17.12. 1998 and in view of the decision of this Tribunal in a similar case of Satyavir Singh (supra). The applicant made a representation to the respondents. The applicant further submitted that his representation was considered by the respondents and he was found entitled to payment of TRCA at the rate Rs.1740-2640 per month, as per calculation sheet (Annexure A- 3- O.A. No. 498/2018
4). But, the benefit was not granted to him. The applicant submitted representations to respondent no. 3 on 08.02.2016, 19.12.2016 and 16.01.2017 (Annexure A-3, A-5 and A-6 respectively) requesting therein that he may be given the TRCA from the due date along with the consequential increments as well as the arrears of the TRCA from 01.03.1998, but to no avail. He filed O.A. No. 825/2017, which was allowed in limine vide order dated 26.07.2017. The grievance of the applicant is that he has been granted the TRCA w.e.f. 01.12.2016 whereas he is entitled to the benefit w.e.f. 01.03.1998.
3. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the case of the applicant. A preliminary objection of limitation has been raised by the respondents while stating that the applicant is claiming revision of his pay scale and consequent arrears from 01.03.1998 for which he made first representation in the year 2015 and it is settled principle of law that a time barred claim cannot be revived by making representations especially when the representation is made after the expiry of limitation period.
4. On merits, the respondents submitted that the applicant had drawn payments on the same scale i.e. in the consolidated allowance now called TRCA slab of 420+DA till March 1999. Accordingly, at the time of 5th CPC (4/1999), the applicant was placed in the TRCA slab 1545-25-2020, which was for those with workload of more than 3 hours and 45 minutes i.e. maximum pay slab of EDR now called GDSMC. At the time of 6th CPC (1/2006), the applicant was placed in the TRCA slab 3635-65-5585, which was the corresponding scale of 1545-250-2020, which was being drawn by the applicant before 4- O.A. No. 498/2018 implementation of the 6th CPC. It has also been stated that pursuant to order dated 26.07.2017 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 825/2017, the claim of the applicant was again sympathetically reconsidered by respondent no. 3 keeping in view the rules of the Department of Posts and came to the conclusion that the applicant has the entitlement for the pay scale of GDSMD/MC i.e. 4220-75-6470 and the same had already been revised w.e.f. 01.12.2016 vide Memo No. H-449/B dated 08.12.2016. Hence, there is no need of any change in TRCA as the applicant has already been having the highest pay scale of GDSMD/MC i.e. 4220-75-6470. As no record is available with the Department regarding the work of the applicant as Mail Delivered prior to 01.08.2014 so as per revaluation of the workload of the available record, the TRCA was revised and paid to the applicant w.e.f. 01.12.2016, which was communicated to the applicant by a reasoned and speaking order dated 26.10.2017. However, the workload of the applicant was again reconsidered by the respondent no. 2 and accordingly the work load of the applicant was revised w.e.f. 01.10.2015 instead of 01.12.2016.
5. I have gone through the pleadings and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both sides.
6. This is the 2nd round of litigation by the applicant. The earlier O.A. (825/2017 decided on 26.07.2017) filed by the applicant was disposed of with the direction to respondents to re-consider the entire matter objectively by deciding representation dated 16.01.2017 of the applicant taking into account the ratio laid down in the case of Satyavir Singh (supra). The decision rendered in the case of Satyavir Singh 5- O.A. No. 498/2018 Vs. Union of India and Others (O.A. No. 70/HR/2006 decided on 02.03.2007) is extracted hereunder:-
"7. I have considered the pleadings and rival arguments on both sides. I am of the view that this case relates to remuneration, called TRCA, admissibility of which to the applicant, is not disputed. Therefore, it cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Further, I find force in the argument of the ld. Counsel for the applicant that since the applicant is performing the same duties, right from 1985, and is covering the same distance daily in discharge of his duties, his total daily duty period remains all the more same throughout, which was assessed as 4.55 hrs in 2004. Attention of the Court has been drawn to Para 5 of the Preliminary submission made by the respondents in their reply wherein it is mentioned that the total workload of the applicant i.e. 4hrs and 55 minutes, was calculated on the basis that he is performing duties of EDDA for 2 hrs & 55 minutes, and that of EDR for 2 hours & 5 minutes. This Court finds that in the case of the applicant, the proportion of workload of EDDA is more than that of EDR. These duties have never undergone any change. Therefore, in view of the clarifications dated 05.03.1999 and 10.08.1999, TRCA in the higher scale of Rs.1740-30-2640, was admissible to him since 1.3.1998. It has wrongly been denied by the respondents just on the basis that record of the applicant for the year 1998 is not available. In any case, in absence of record and admittedly there being no change in the duties of the applicant since 26.08.1985, respondents could easily assume his workload for the year 1998 to be more than 3 hrs and 45 minutes. Denial of higher remuneration to the applicant for the period 1.3.1998 to 30.06.2004 is held to be illegal and arbitrary.
Consequently, this O.A. is allowed. Applicant is held entitled to TRCA for the period 01.03.1998 to 30.06.2004 in the scale of Rs.1740-30-2640 and it is directed that arrears, admissible to the applicant on this count, be paid to him within a 6- O.A. No. 498/2018 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Prayer of the applicant for interest on this amount is hereby declined. There is no order as to costs."
7. Undisputedly, the applicant herein is like Satyavir Singh, who was also engaged as Extra Departmental Runner. The direction of this Tribunal to the respondents vide order dated 26.07.2017 was to consider objectively the claim of the applicant for TRCA w.e.f. 01.03.1998 in view of the decision in the case of Satyavir Singh (supra). Pursuant to the direction, the claim of the applicant for TRCA has been settled w.e.f. 01.12.2016. The grievance of the applicant still remains for grant of TRCA w.e.f. 01.03.1998 as has been given to the similarly situated person Satyavir Singh. The respondents vide impugned order dated 26.10.2017 has rejected the claim of TRCA on the ground of being time-barred which, to my opinion, is not available to them when they are under direction to consider the case in the light of Satyavir Singh's case (supra) wherein the similar objection raised by the respondents has been rejected as the issue relates to remuneration called TRCA being recurring in nature.
8. The second ground taken by the respondents while rejecting the claim of the applicant is that the facts of the case of the applicant are distinguishable from that of Satyavir Singh but the stand has not been substantiated. Nothing has been explained either in the impugned order or in the written statement as to how the facts of the present case are distinguishable from that of Satyavir Singh‟s case. The argument cannot be accepted being unsubstantiated. 7- O.A. No. 498/2018
9. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that as no record is available with the Department regarding the work of Sh. Sunil Kumar as Mail Deliverer prior to 01.08.2014 so as per re- evaluation of the workload of the available record, the TRCA was revised and paid to Sh. Sunil Kumar w.e.f. 01.12.2016 further revised w.e.f. 01.10.2015. The non-availability of record cannot be a ground to deny the legitimate claim of the applicant. This ground has also been thrashed by this Tribunal in the case of Satyavir Singh. In para 4 of the preliminary submissions, the respondents themselves have averred that at the time of 5th CPC (4/1999), the applicant was placed in the TRCA slab of Rs.1545-25-2020 which was for those with workload of more than 03 hours and 45 minutes i.e. maximum pay slab for EDR now called GDSMC, meaning thereby that it can easily be assumed in the present case, even without the records, that the applicant was working more than 03 hours and 45 minutes. However, the averment that the TRCA slab of Rs.1545-25-2020 granted to the applicant at that time was the maximum one is contradictory to the observations made by this Tribunal in the case of Satyavir Singh wherein it has been categorically observed that "in view of the clarifications dated 05.03.1999 and 10.08.1999, TRCA in the higher scale of Rs.1740-30-2640 was admissible to him since 01.03.1998". Therefore, this argument of the respondents also falls to the grounds. The applicant like Satyavir Singh is eligible for the higher scale of TRCA i.e. Rs. 1740-30-2640 w.e.f. 01.03.1998.
10. In view of the discussion hereinabove, I am of the view that the impugned order 26.01.2017 has been passed overlooking the 8- O.A. No. 498/2018 observations made by this Tribunal in the case of Satyavir Singh (supra) and is therefore quashed and set aside. The Original Application is allowed. The applicant is held entitled to TRCA at the rate of 1740-30-2640 w.e.f. 01.03.1998. The relevant benefit be granted to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) „mw‟