Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Nanda Kumar Mishra vs D/O India Post on 15 October, 2020
1 o.a. 350.00951.2020 ! CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL i 4 KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA .1 No. O.A. 350/00951/2020 Dated of order: 15.10.2020i t i Present : ■* HonTDle Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member I HonTile Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member I Shri Nanda Kumar Mishra, Son of Late Haripada Mishra, Aged about 67 years, Residing at Village & Post Office - Jalchak, > Police Station - Pingla, District - Midnapore, Pin - 721155 and i . f Retired from service; while working to ;
The post of GDSMD/GDS Packer at Jalchak Branch Post Office, Midnapore Head Office in the Midnapore Head Office in the Midnapore Division under the / Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, <• i Midnapore Division, Midnapore.
< \
... Applicant
VERSUS-
1. Union of India,
Service through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department of Posts, 20, Sanchar Bhawan 5 f AshokaRoad, New Delhi - 110 001.
t ' 2. The Chief Post Master General ) ;
West Bengal Circle, ! Yogayog' Bhawan, C.R. Avenue j l I Kolkata - 700 012.
3. The Post Master General } South Bengal Region, Yogayog Bhawan 1 Kolkata-700 012.
I i \ l l 1 2 o.a. 350.00951.2020 f ! 4. The Additional Director of Postal Services, r West Bengal Circle, South Bengal Region, . >f v' Yogayog Bhawan, C.R. Avenue, Kolkata - 700 012.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Midnapore Division, Midnapore, Pin - 721101.
6. The Inspector of Posts, Balichak Sub-Division, Ghatal-721214;;
District - Midnapore.
i t
7. The Senior Postmaster, i Midnapore Head Office, ( District - Midnapore - 721101.
» s'
8. The Sub-Divisional Inspector (P), Department of Posts, Balichak Sub-Division, Balichak - 721124, District - Midnapore.
Respondents I. For the Applicants Mr. P.C. Das, Counsel Ms. T. Maity, Counsel ! For the Respondents Mr. B.B. Chatterjee, Counsel ORDER (Orall Per Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member:
i .I The applicant in the instant O.A., had served as a GDSMD,I Sind, reportedly,, was discharging duties and functions in the vacant post of GDSMD/G'DS Packer in Jalchak Branch Post Office under Midr/eujpox-o despite discharging such duties in compliance to orders of igtter-
authorities, he was deprived of appropriate pay and allowances, I tine ■ ! ■ - -
! applicant has approached this Tribunal'with the instant O.A. p Ci' i r 3 0.5.350.00951,2020
2. The relief, as sought for in this O.A., is as follows:-
"(a) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authority tio disburse the actual pay and allowances in connection to the post of GDSMD/GDS Packer which your applicant is discharging which i s SL vacant post as per the direction of the respondent authority which' iIS appearing at Annexure A-l of this original application and to give tTxc benefit of. pay with effect from 07,5.2002 to 31.12.2018 in respec : of TRCA (Time-Related Continuity Allowance) which was less paid and tlrxo arrear Bonus of 2016-17 and arrear payment of 7* CPC as per title Report of Kamlesh Chandra Committee in favour of the applicant aiding with all consequential benefits which your applicant is regarding for entitled to;
(b) To pass an appropriate order directing upon the respondent authoritfy to give the benefit of pay with effects from 07.05.2002 to 31.12.201^ m respect of TRCA (Time-Related Continuity Allowance) which was less paid and the arrear Bonus of 2016-17 and arrear payment of 7* CPC asf per the Report of Kamlesh Chandra Committee in favour of the applicant, along with all consequential benefits which your applicant is regarding for entitled to in the light of the decision passed by this Honble TribLinaJ.
in the case of Radhashyam Das -vs.- Union of India & ors. in O.A.J TTo. 350/1376 of 2018 being Annexure A-3 of this original application arid in. the light of the implementation order issued by the same Division of JPo st Offices dated 13.12.2018 being Annexure A-4 of this original application."
3. Heard both Id. Counsel, examined documents on record. fTtais matter is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.
4. The submissions of Ld. Counsel for the applicant is, that tTie applicant, who functioned as a GDSMD prior to his retirement, directed from time to time by his higher, authorities to discharge dto/ties and responsibilities in the vacant post of GDSMD/GDS Packer* in Midnapore Head Office.
The applicant would contend that he is entitled to appropriate payment of TRCA, arrear bonus of 2016-17, as well as arrears of 7^ CF'C as per the report of the Kamlesh Chandra Committee. The respondent authorities, however, not only deprived the applicants of such amounts but also reduced the applicant's pay by more than Rs. 4324/- per montli w.e.f. 7.0 5.2002 to 31.12.2018 in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
The applicants would further aver that, an identical issue 'was decided upon by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/01376^ 20 1S ku' *• /I 0.3.350.00951.2020 (Radhashyam Das v. Union of India & ors.) which was disposed of t>y the Tribunal, vide orders dated 28.9.2018 and, in compliance thereof, jtie Office of the respondent No. 5, who is the Sr. Superintendent of PDst:
Offices, had decided in favour of Shri Radhashyam Das and h.SL<i disbursed arrear payments to Shri Radhashyam Das (Annexure A-4 to the O.A.) concluding as follows:
"6. In the view of the above, it has been decided that the benefit of O'SAm TRCA i.e. Rs. 4830/- is admissible to Sri Das while he was working as G-OS ' BPM Fatechak B.O. since 28.3.2015. Thus the concerned D.D.O. i.e. I Sr*. Postmaster, Midnapore H.O. is hereby directed to take up the matter separately not in general i.e. it would be applicable only to the applicant (Sri Das) axxcL settle the case immediately. The representation dated 16.5.2017 preferrec t>y Sri Radhashyam Das, GDSBPM, Taladiha B.O. is accordingly disposed,of."
5. Ld. Counsel would aver that the applicant had represented on.
5.3.2019 (Annexure A-2-to the O.A.) praying for arrear pay a_ncl allowances w.e.f. 7.5.2002 to 31.12.2018 in the light of decisions arrirv'ocL i at in the matter of Shri Radhashyam Das. As such representation remains pending, however, Ld. Counsel would urge for directions on early disposal of such prayer.
6. Ld. Counsel for the respondents would not object to disposal of-
such representation in accordance with law, subject to similarity of t:3n.e applicant's circumstances with that of Shri Radhashyam Das.
* s* ■
7. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of. the matter, a_ncl?
t with the consent of the parties,, we would hereby direct i concerned/addressee respondent authority to decide on the representation (if received at his end), and, in accordance with la.'w.
-?
within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of tin. is order.
The concerned respondent authority should convey his decision in the form of a reasoned and speaking order to the applicant.
s>
S' y\
* v:
\*
i
r. V
r
; 5 o.a. 350.00951.2020
In case the applicant is able to conclusively establish his claim^ and, if his grievance is found to .be genuine, the respondent authoxp.jt'y^ shall further decide on his entitlements and arrange to disburse same within a further period of 8 weeks'thereafter. i
8. With these directions, the O.A. is disposed of. No costs. i / / V l /' ! (Dr. Nandita Chatterjee) (Btdisha Banerjee) Administrative Member Judicial Member I SP i *> 4 •:
4•r.