Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Shesh Mani Pandey vs Chief Post Master General Up Circle on 10 December, 2019
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
****%****
Original Application No. 330/00050/2016
Allahabad this the 10h day of December, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bharat Bhushan, Member-]
Resident of Branch
Narayan Pandey aged about 42 years
Shesh Mani Pandey Son of Ashok
District-Allahabad.
Post Master Khunta Jari Bazar, Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. M.K. Upadhyay
Vs.
Department of
of Communication,
the Secretary, Ministry
1. Union of India through Delhi-110001.
Marg, New
Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
2 Chief Post Master
Allahabad Region, Allahabad.
3. Post Master General Allahabad.
Allahabad Division,
Superintendent of Post Office,
4 Senior Respondents
Binod Kumar Rai
By AdvOcate: Mr.
ORDER
Original Pandey has filed this applicant-Shesh Mani Act. The Administrative Tribunals Section 19 of the Application (0A) under relief(s):
A.T. Act) for following order 1985 (in short to quash the graciously be pleased Tribunal may This Hon'ble No. 4.
" () the respondent 31.10.2014passed by dated to direct the graciously be pleased 0L01.2006 with Tribunal may effect from This Hon'ble Rs.3660)-70-5760 with (II) TRCA respondents to revise alongwith arrears etc. consequential benefits proper in the all Court may deem fit and Hon'ble relief, which this Anv otber present case.
(|II) circumstances of the applicant "
facts and of the applicationinfavour original Awardcost the (IV) 2 .
Shorn of all details/the brief facts of this O.A. are that the applicant working as a Branch Post Master, is Khunta (Jari Bazar), Allahabad. appears that the Ministry of It of Posts Communication, Department (Establishment Division) had issued a letter in the year 2009 or implementation of recommendation of Shri R.S. Nataraja Murli Committee report for revision of wage structure of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) whereby the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) was revised from 01.01.2006.
3. The employees who were in the TRCA band of Rs.1600-40-2400 were to be given Rs.3660-70-5760/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
1600-40 4 The case of applicant is that he was getting TRCA of Rs.
for revised TRCA of 2400/- on 01.01.2006. Therefore, he was entitled Rs. 3660-70-5760/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
TRCA of Rs. 3660-70-5760/-. 5 The applicant failed to get the representations and also sought information Therefore, he moved several wherein it was Act, 2005 (in short RTI Act) under Right to Information 1600-40-2400/- on was getting TRCA of Rs. admitted that the applicant (Annexure A-1), By the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 01.01.2006.
that his Post Office applicant was denied on the ground the request of points. The claim of accorded the workload of less than 75 had been the Post Office Post Masters who was working in department is that only enhanced TRCA of points were to be given of 75 having a workload applicant was the said ground, the request of Rs.3660-70-5760/-. On Tribunal.
brought the applicant to this denied which has l1.05.2016and Counter Reply on respondents have filed a 30.06.2016 and
6. The Affidavit on Rejoinder applicant filed thereafter 11.02.2019.
on Rejoinder Affidavit Supplementary 7 The case of respondents' depatment is tht the Post Office in which the applicant was working as Banch Post Offce (0DS BPM) had becn accorded a workload of 57.26 points and, therefore, the TRCAof Rs.3660 705760/ cnhanced cannot be granted to the applicant 8 Heard Shri MK. Upadhyny, Advocate for the applicant and Shri M.K. Sharma, Advocate holding bief of Shri B.K. Rai, Advocate for the respondents.
The claim of learned counsel for the applicant is prinarily based on the fact that the applicant was getting TRCA Rs.1600-40-2400/- on 01.01.2006, therefore, he is entitled of enhanced TRCA Rs.3660-70 5760/-. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relicd upon the points accorded to the Branch Post Office of Khunta (Jari Bazar), Allahabad wherein the workload had been accorded 57.26.
original circular
10. For resolving this dispute, we must go back to the been made. This circular letter whereby the enhancement had in fact 09.10.2009 says that TRCA had in fact letter No. 6-1/2009-PE.II dated of GDS and Post Masters. This been enhanced for different categories Supplementary Rejoinder Affidavit as document is available with the this circular letter is Annexure SRA-1. The relevant portion of reproduced as below: -
as on allowed to Gramin Dak Sevaks working "2.2 The Fitment to be 31.12.2005 is as below: - TRCA 40% fitment Pre-revised TRCA Revised SI Category of GDS W.e.f. 01.01.2006 to No. allowed Rs.4575-85-7125 Rs. 1250 Rs.2125-50-3125 GDS Sub Postmaster Rs.2745-50-4245 Rs.792 Branch Rs. 1280-35-1980 2 GDS Postmaster (75 points workload Rs.3660-70-5760 Rs. 960 Branch Rs. 1600-40-2400
3. GDS Postmaster (more 75 points than Rs.3330-60-5130 Rs.750 workload) Rs.1375-25-2 125 4 GDS Mail deliverer/ Stamp Vendor (work hrs 45 load up to 3 4 mts) 5 GDS Mail deliverer/ Rs. Rs.4220-75-6470 Rs.936 Stamp Vendor (work 1740-30-2640 load more than3 hrs 45 mts)
6. GDS Mail Carrier/ Rs.1220-20-1600 Rs.2870-50-4370 Rs.640 Packer/ Mailman (work load up to 3 hrs 45 mts) 7 GDS Mail Carrier/ Rs.1545-25-2020 Rs.3635-65-5585 Rs.808 Packer/Mailman (work load more than 3 hrs 45 mts) A bare perusal of this chart would indicate that the GDS BPM who Rs.1600-40-2400/- were to be enhanced were getting the TRCA band of BPM Rs.3660-70-5760/-, It talks that the GDS in the TRCA band of more than 75 points workload had been whose Branch Post Office has if Rs. 1600-40-2400/-, meaning thereby that placed in the TRCA band of it TRCA band of Rs. 1600-40-2400/-, any GDS BPM was placed in the Rs.3660-70-5760/-.
to was to be revised that the applicant was working in The claim of the respondents is
11. points, is workload is less than 75 Post Office wherein the the Branch information fromn the sought the by facts. The applicant him not borne out, information was provided to this RTI Act and department under that the department admitted the obligation wherein 1600-40-2400/- on under statutory of Rs.
the band
getting TRCA in the
applicant was placed on the record by
information has been 01.01.2006. This 4 of this Paragraphs No. 3 and
45).
Annexure A-15 (page 0.A., which applicant as dispute in this resolving the relevant for information are very are reproduced below: 29.11.96 + 34-HR B-3/Allow/EDBPMs/EDGPms f i ya[5 3H HIUts (3).
GH fhu Tu Establishment Bill TRCA HItT dT HGER 2009 T fO 0103.98 (4) Dec 0S Paid Basic Pay- 1880/ Jan'06 DA - 1400/ SA 10/ OMA S0/ TRCA 92/ Total 3432/-"
under its statutory This information was given by the department Act 2005. Surprisingly, obligation stemming from Right to Information Counter respondents have not explained this information in the the Reply,filed by the department.
this Tribunal asked the department
12. It is pertinent to point out that 05.12.2019 is The order dated about this information. on 05.12.2019 reproduced as below:
Shamra proxy present for applicant. Shri M.K. Upadhyay, Advocate is present for respondents. "Shri M.K. Rai, Advocateis counsel to ShriB.K. Counsel for respondents has his argument.
applicant has concluded Counsel for case.
substantially argued this this case. also the factualmatrix of discrepancy in some Branch appears that there is contends that It 10.2009 placed in No.6-1/2009-PE.II dated 09. 1600-40-2400was to be that the letter Band of Rs. was required The circular who was in the Pay It is true that it Post Master Rs.3660-70-5760/0. workload.
points enhanced grade of have more than 75 who were in Postmaster must PostMaster, those Branch workload of more applicant is that had to be in l600-40-2400.The Argument of for counsel1600-40-2400 were initially grade of Rs.
the the pay band of Rs.
is they were in whyRs.3660-70-5760. that points and replaced to than 75 indicates that had to be Annexure A-15 pay band record as January, 2016. available on l600-40-2400 in 2005 indicates information pay band Rightof Rs. Intormation Act, The RTI. indeed in the to applicant was this information under Column No.4 of Therefore, he has discrepancy. allowed.
this. this is could not explaindepartment, which holder from the counsel for Learned brief seek information argument of sought time to remaining
2.30 PM for 10.12.2019 at List on respondents." respondents.
counsel for to the order be given Copy of
13. Today, learned brief holder Shri M.K. Sharma appearing on behali of respondents counsel has placed before this Tribunal the letter of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Allahabad Division wherein the department has admitted, reinforced and reaffirmed the information provided under RTI Act. The contents of this letter are reproduced as below:
05.12.2019 it is intimated that the With reference to your letter dated B-3/GDS/Allowances Allahabad information furnished vide this office letter no 2005 is re-affirmed.
dated 10.11.2010 under R.T.I. Act kindly be intimated to requested that the progress made in the case may It is authorities may be informed office from time to time so that higher this accordingly."
is made it clear that the department A bare perusal of this letter Mani Pandey was in TRCA the applicant-Shesh accepting this fact that Once this fact has been 01.01.2006.
1600-40-2400/- on band of Rs. incumbent upon them to department then it was admitted by the Rs.3660-70-5760/-.
applicant to enhance the TRCA band of the to another letter of to give reference be pertinent wherein following It would A-3, as Annexure
14. 01.01.2010, filed department dated department:
of the issued to the employees clarifications have been order dated 09.10.09 to in the workload' referred implementation of the orders i.e. existing The term date of orders are very "(i) of GDS as on the re-fixation. The workload of the indicates the in the workload as on date 31.12.05 will be the as on hours, 4.5 01.01.06 but not for GDS working for 3.5 TRCA BPMs revised recommended for revised norms clear that the The slabs as per the only. increases/revision replacement slabs tuture hours willbe tor bours and 5 workload inpoint systenn. Rs.1600-40-2400 will be of the TRCA was whose Government.
regard to BPMs, by the In Rs.3660-70-5760as approved 01.01.06.
(ii) TRCA after
replaced by second
TRCA is revised
to 3660-70-5760 from the
whose Rs.
to BPM, replacenent slab of slab."
In regard in the anyother
(ii) fixed not in
has to be method, but
their TRCA the fixation
revision as per
date of
7
This clarification also reinforces the contention of applicant and his counsel.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Tribunal towards Office Memo No. B-3/GDS BPM/TRCA/02 dated wherein at serial No. 10.06.2004 (Annexure A-15 at page 46 of the 0.A.) points Bazar had been accorded to 57.26 383 the GDS BPM, Khoota, Jari of this memo would disclose that this workload. The careful perusal meaning thereby that the workload of workload was up to 01.01.2002 indeed had been accorded (Jari Bazar), Allahabad was GDSBPM Khunta of However, the record the calendar year 2001. 57.26 points in 2004, about the years 2002, 2003, completely silent in respondents is workload accorded the basis of subsequent years. On continued till 2005, 2006 and workload assumed that this 2001, it cannot be 1600-40-2400/ the year TRCA of Rs.
applicant was given Allahabad
that the Bazar),
2006. The fact Khunta(Jari
workload of GDS BPM, TRCA
therefore, the
indicates that the year 2006
and,
increased by the
perhaps been applicant.
had accorded to
1600-40-2400/- was band of Rs. argued that the also respondents has filed counsel for the 0.A. has been Learned and this
16. year 2014 should be in the was passed this 0.A. impugned order ground of delay therefore, on the this contention of year 2016, agreement with in the in been Tribunalis not applicant had This the dismissed.
simple reason that made,
counsel for the payment is
respondents' the
till
longand
TRCA band since action and
each
due cause of
deniedhis right recurring
Survives. This
is opinion, this
of
action action. In my
the cause cause of
new
non-payment gives
day of sustainable. applicant
not the
argument is apparent that
discussions, it is 01.01.2006
aforesaid 1600-40-2400/- on
of
In view band of Rs.
17. the TRCA
ittedly in
8
and, therefore, he was entitled to revised TRCA band of Rs.3660-70- 5760/-.
dated Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned order
18. aside. The respondents are directed to 31.10.2014 (Annexure A-1) is set of Rs.3660-70-5760/- w.e.f. the revised TRCA place the applicant in along with arrears etc. within with all consequential benefits 01.01.2006 copy of this of a certified months from the date of receipt a period of four order. No cost.
(JUSTICE BHARAT BHUSHAN) MEMBER (J) /M.M/