Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Amrik Kaur vs D/O Post on 10 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.912/2020
PRONOUNCED ON:
RESERVED ON: 17.02.2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Amrik Kaur , aged 53 years, w/o Sh. Sardul Singh, presently
working as GDSBPM Lauka, B.O. via Kairon, S.O. District Amritsar
(Group C_
.... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. R.K.SHARMA SR. ADV WITH SH. ABHIMANYU
RANA)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, Department
of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
2. Director General Posts, Ministry of Communication and &
Information Technology, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad
Marg, New Delhi-110001
3. Chief Post Master General, Punjab West Region, Sector 17,
Chandigarh-160017
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Amritsar Division,
Amritsar.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal Senior CGSC)
DINKY DINKY
BANSALBANSAL
2
ORDER
PER: MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
1. Brief facts as stated in OA are that the Applicant belonging to SC category was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (now Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master - GDS BPM) with effect from 22.03.1990 vide Memo dated 04.01.1991. Her outstanding performance was duly recognized by the Department through conferment of the prestigious Meghdoot Award in 2007 and Best Performance Award in 2017. Pursuant to the recommendations of the R. S. Nataraja Murti Committee, the Department of Posts implemented the scheme of Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) vide letter dated 09.10.2009, whereby TRCA is required to be fixed on the basis of assessed workload points. According to applicant, as per the prescribed norms, a GDS BPM with workload exceeding 112.5 points is entitled to the highest slab of TRCA.
2. The Branch Office under the charge of the applicant caters to four villages and she has consistently been functioning for full working hours from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM, as reflected in annual inspection reports from the year 2015 onwards. The nature and volume of work, coupled with the duration of duty hours, clearly establish that the workload exceeds 112.5 points, thereby entitling the Applicant to the highest slab of TRCA, i.e., ₹4575-85-7125 (w.e.f. 01.01.2006), revised to ₹14,500-35,480 (w.e.f. 01.07.2018). However, the respondents, on the basis of an alleged workload report, assessing it only 81.45 points, have fixed the applicant in a DINKY DINKY BANSALBANSAL 3 lower TRCA slab of ₹3660-70-5760 (revised to ₹12,000-29,380 w.e.f. 01.07.2018).
3. The Applicant submitted a representation dated 28.03.2017 seeking correction of TRCA in accordance with actual workload, but the same was rejected. Her request for information under the Right to Information Act regarding workload assessment was also declined on 17.03.2017 on the ground that the latest figures were not available in material form. The applicant thereafter served a legal notice dated 23.09.2020 demanding grant of the correct TRCA slab and consequential benefits. The Respondents, vide reply dated 26.10.2020, rejected it also, thus this OA.
4. The Respondents have submitted that the wages payable to different categories of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) are governed by the system of Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA), which is strictly based on workload assessment. It is stated that the wage structure of GDS employees was revised pursuant to the recommendations of the, One Man Committee headed by R. S. Nataraja Murti with effect from 01.01.2006, circulated vide Postal Directorate letter dated 09.10.2009. Subsequently, wages and allowances were further revised with effect from 01.07.2018 as per the recommendations of the One Man Committee headed by Kamlesh Chandra, circulated vide letter dated 25.06.2018. It has been submitted that the applicant has been drawing TRCA as admissible to her from time to time on the basis of assessed workload.
DINKY DINKY BANSALBANSAL 4
5. According to the Respondents, the workload of the Applicant was assessed by the Inspector Posts, Patti Sub Division, on the basis of figures for the year 2016-17 of Lauka Branch Post Office. The workload was calculated at 81.45 points, and the calculation sheet has been placed on record as Annexure R/1. It is contended that as per 81.45 workload points, the justified TRCA for the post was the second slab of ₹2745-50-4245. However, the applicant was already drawing a higher TRCA of ₹3660-70-5760, which was more than the admissible TRCA based on the assessed workload. Accordingly, her representation was decided by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Amritsar Division, vide letter dated 18.04.2017, and she was given an opportunity to increase the workload of the Branch Office within one year to avoid reduction of TRCA as per admissible workload.
6. The Respondents further submit that upon revision of TRCA pursuant to the recommendations of the One Man Committee headed by Kamlesh Chandra with effect from 01.07.2018, the Applicant was granted revised TRCA in the corresponding level of the new TRCA structure, and the fixation sheet has been annexed as Annexure R/3.
7. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the facts on record. As per above, it is amply clear that the applicant had already drawn more TRCA than justified as it has been clarified through various workload reports on record. The contention of the applicant that her workload was more than the limit is not DINKY DINKY BANSALBANSAL 5 supported by any report or analysis. Work load of the applicant has been calculated by Inspector Posts, Patti Sub Division on the basis of figures of 2016-17 of Lauka Branch Post Office which come out to be 81.45 points (R-1). The applicant was already drawing TRCA @ 3660-70-5760 which is applicable for 100 points as per the workload points. So as detailed in the written statement, the applicant has been receiving TRCA more than the workload, determined by the various reports. In the circumstances, the relief claimed by applicant is without any substance and cannot be accepted.
8. The applicant has cited that TRCA calculated by respondents was based on wrong calculation by the authorities, however has not included any evidence in support of her claim. She has further claimed that various awards which include Meghdoot Award in 2007 which states that the workload of applicants' Branch Office was very high in comparison to the other Branch Office, but there is no quantification to show the workload which can help sustain her claim, as no data regarding quantum of work has been placed on record. The applicant has also stated that the work load calculated by respondents is based on some report of IP West containing work load of 81.45 which is incorrect and in view of the annual inspection of the applicants' Branch Office, the respondents have failed to show how workload points comes to 66 in year 2020. This report has not been challenged by applicant. We find her arguments are rambling and inconclusive and based on generalisation without any DINKY DINKY BANSALBANSAL 6 specific quantative data to support her claim. In the circumstances, we find ourselves unable to agree with the contentions of the applicant.
9. Hence, we find no merit in OA and OA is dismissed. No orders to cost.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
db
DINKY DINKY
BANSALBANSAL