Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
D.Kaladharan vs Sub Post Master on 20 October, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH O.A No. 698 / 2007 Monday, this the 20th day of October, 2008. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR K.S.SUGATHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER D.Kaladharan, Gramin Dak Sevak Stamp Vendor, Chavara.P.O. ....Applicant (By Advocate Mr MR Hariraj ) v/s 1. Sub Post Master, Chavara-691 583. 2. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division, Kollam. 3. Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum. 4. Union of India represented by Secretary to Government of India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, New Delhi. ....Respondents (By Advocate Mr P.A.Aziz, ACGSC ) This application having been finally heard on 3.10.2008, the Tribunal on 20.10.2008 delivered the following: O R D E R
HON'BLE MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicant's grievance is that he has been arbitrarily denied increments and Productivity Linked Bonus during the period of his provisional appointment as Gramin Dak Sevak.
2. The facts of the case are that the first respondent engaged the applicant as a stop gap arrangement with effect from 12.9.1999 against a regular vacancy of Gramin Dak Sevak Stamp Vendor (GDSSV for short), Chavara caused by the resignation of the incumbent. Thereafter, one Smt Sobhana and Shri Venugopala Pillai filed O.A.764/1998 and 1157/1999 respectively claiming appointment against the said post. O.A.764/1994 was allowed by this Tribunal but the order was challenged by Shri Venugopala Pillai vide O.P.5059/2002. As an interim measure, High Court stayed the orders of this Tribunal in O.A.764/1998. Consequently, the stop gap arrangement made in favour of the applicant continued. Finally, O.P.5059/2002 was dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant filed O.A.82/2003 seeking a declaration that his services as EDSV Chavara Post Office was on provisional basis and the same was not liable to be terminated except in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 25-F and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has also claimed alternate employment to the post of GDSV Chavara on other existing or future vacancy on termination of his provisional service as GDS, Chavara. This Tribunal allowed the aforesaid O.A vide order dated 24.7.2003 (Annexure A-1) declaring that the applicant was provisionally appointed to the post of EDSV, Chavara with effect from 12.9.1999 and he was entitled for all the benefits available under the extant rules including alternate appointment available to a provisional employee facing termination of service. Though the aforesaid order of this Tribunal challenged before the Hon'ble High Court vide W.P.(C) No.460/2004 the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.9.2006. Thereafter, vide Anenxure A-3 letter dated 28.5.2007 the respondents issued orders appointing the applicant on provisional basis with retrospective effect from 12.9.1999. Thereafter, he made the Annexure A-4 representation dated 7.6.2007 for grant of Productivity Link Bonus and increment due to him from 12.9.1999. Respondents rejected the said representation vide Annexure A-5 impugned order dated 15.6.2007 stating that provisional appointees are not eligible for bonus and his claim can be considered only on his regularisation in the post. Subsequently, vide Annexure A-6 order dated 5.7.2007 he was regularly appointed as GDSSV, Chavara with effect from 19.5.2005(FN), the date from which the Hon'ble High Court dismissed of O.P.5059/2002 filed by Shri Venugopala Pillai as the stay was continuing till that date. Thereafter, the respondents paid him the Productivity Linked Bonus and increments with effect from 19.5.2005.
3. According to the respondents, the claim for grant of Productivity Linked Bonus for regular staff including the casual labourers and ED staff in the Postal Department came into effect from 1.4.1979 and it is still in force with periodical modification. The employees are granted bonus every year at the rate declared by the Government each year in relation to Staff Productivity Index as agreed to in the JCM. Only the regularly appointed GDSs have been made eligible for the Productivity Linked Bonus. In this regard, they have relied upon the DG, Posts letter No.26-4/87-PAP(Pt) dated 8.2.1988 in which it has been clarified that Productivity Linked Bonus scheme is applicable only to the regular employees of the Department. As regards ED employees are concerned, they are entitled for bonus, only if they were regularly appointed, after observing all appointment formalities (Annexure R-1). They have also relied upon the Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts letter dated 7.8.2002 (Annexure R2 (2)) in which the following provision regarding grant of bonus and increments have been made:
"As regards demand for grant of Bonus and increments (called future annual entitlements) in TRCA to provisional GDS appointees, it is clarified that provisional appointment is resorted to when a GDS (a) retires (b) is put off duty or ) when deputed to APS. Instructions already exist to curb the practice of making provisional appointments and to reduce the period of provisional appointments to the bare minimum. These need to be monitored and enforced more effectively. As far as provisional appointment against persons deputed to APS, the issue of allow regular appointment against such posts to curb provisional appointment will be explored. It may also be mentioned that the issue of whether bonus should be paid to the provisional appointees, has been examined even earlier in consultation with Internal Finance and rejected. Hence the question of giving in to this demand does not arise. The bonus is, however, being given to GDSs who are working .against departmental post and who provide substitute in their place. Thus the provisional appointees are not entitled to bonus.
In the case of increment to the provisional appointee the position is the same as in the case of bonus since the effort should be to curb the practice of provisional appointments rather than provide them with increments that will further their continuance."
4. We have heard Shri M.R.Hariraj, counsel for applicant .and Shri P.A.Aziz, ACGSC for respondents The services on 'provisional basis' and 'regular basis' are entirely on different footings. The respondents have a clear policy regarding payment of Productivity Linked Bonus and increments in TRCA to the Gramin Dak Sevaks. According to the said policy, Productivity Linked Bonus and increments in TRCA are admissible to only regular Gramin Dak Sevaks and not to those who are serving on provisional basis. It is on the basis of the aforesaid policy that the respondents have rejected the applicant's representation for grant of Productivity Linked Bonus and increments for the period of his provisional service commencing from 12.9.1999 vide impugned Anenxure A-5 letter dated 15.6.2007. They have paid him both the Productivity Linked Bonus and the increments in TRCA after 19.5.2005 i.e. the date from which he has been regularly appointed. We do not find .the aforesaid action of the respondents arbitrary, unjust and illegal as alleged by the applicant. This O.A is, therefore, devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dated, the 20th October, 2008.
DR K.S.SUGATHAN GEORGE PARACKEN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER