Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Debashis Manna vs D/O India Post on 12 June, 2019
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CALCUTTA BENCH
CALCUTTA
No.O.A. 350/1174/2013 Date of order: 12.06.2019
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Dr.(Ms.) N. Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Shri Debashis Manna
Son of Shri Santosh Kumar Manna
Aged about 52 years.
Working for gain as EDSBPM, Chandanpurhat E.D.
Branch Office in A/c with Sagareswar Branch Office
Under Contai Division, District Medinipur East
And residing at Vill. And P.O. Chandanpurhat,
Dist. Medinipur East, West Bengal.
Applicant.
Versus
1. Union of India
through the Secretary to the Govt, of India,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110116.
2. The Director General of Posts,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 006.
3. The Chief Postmaster General,
West Bengal Postal Circle,
Yoagayog Bhawan, P-36 C. R. Avenue,
Kolkata - 700 012.
4. The Post Master General,
South Bengal Region,
s.
2
rw
'riJ
-i
Yogayog Bhawan, C. R. Avenue,
Kolkata - 700 012.
5. The Asstt. Director of Postal Services,
Office of the P.M.G, South Bengal Region,
P-36 C. R. Avenue,
Kolkata-700 012.
6. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Contai Division, Contai,
Midnapore East, Pin - 721401.
Respondents.
For the applicant : Mr J.R. Das, counsel
For the respondents : Mrs. R. Basu, counsel
O R D E R(ORAL)
Mr. Justice L Narasimha Reddy, Chairman The applicant is working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master(GDSBPM) at Chandanpurhat Extra Departmental Branch Office(EDBO) in Contai Division. The applicant states that even though he performed duty to the optimum level since 1996 he has been put in a lower TRCA in the scale of Rs.1280-1980/-. He made several representations and prayed for TRCA scale of Rs.1600-40-2400. He approached the Dak Adalat also and on the basis of the steps taken therein the benefit of TRCA was extended to him from 01.04.2009. The applicant claimed the benefit of enhanced TRCA w.e.f. 1996 and filed O.A.No.1465/2010. The O.A. was disposed of on 24.01.2013 directing the 6th Respondent therein i.e. the Superintendent of Post Offices, 3 r '■•7 Contai Division, Midnapore to give a personal hearing to the applicant and to pass a reasoned order as per the extant rules and guidelines. . 2. In compliance with the order in the O.A., the Superintendent of Post offices, Contai Division passed an order dated 09.04.2013. It was mentioned that in obedience to the order of this Tribunal, the applicant was called for personal hearing and he expressed his inability to produce the relevant documents in support of his claim. This O.A. is filed challenging the order dated 09.04.2013.
3. The applicant contends that the inspection reports of the post office reveal that he worked to the full extent from 1996 onwards, but the 6th respondent did not take the relevant facts into account and denied the benefits, for the relevant period.
4. We heard Mr. J.R. Das, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. R. Basu,learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The applicant was extended the benefit of TRCA w.e.f. 2009. He pleaded that he is entitled to be extended the benefit from the year 1996 onwards. In case the applicant had any material in his possession in support of the plea he could have placed the same before the respondents when he was called for personal hearing. However, he expressed mis inability to produce documents in support of his claim. Relevant para of the impugned order dated 09.04.2013 reads as under:-
"In obedience to the order of the Hon'ble CAT, Kolkata Bench vide OA No.1455 of 2010 dated 24.01.2013, the applicant Sri Manna has been called upon hearing with relevant documents like BO Account Book, BO Journal etc. for the year 1996 for reexamination of the workload. Sri Manna has attended to the y-.i-/ 's 4 i- r r-y i office of the undersigned on 05.04.2013 but he expressed his inability to produce the same."
6. From the above it becomes clear that the applicant expressed his inability to produce the materials when he appeared before the respondents for reexamination of the workload.
7. In this O.A. certain documents are filed. A perusal of the same discloses that those documents are prepared by the applicant himself. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon, and the applicant cannot be extended the benefits w.e.f. 1996 on the basis of the same. The inspection reports for the relevant period reveal that the work of the applicant was found to be unsatisfactory.
8. We do not find any merit in the O.A and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. N. Chatterjee) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
Administrative Member Chairman
sb