Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
M Srinivas vs Dept Of Posts on 4 October, 2021
OA No.517/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH : AT HYDERABAD
OA/020/00517/2014
Date of CAV: 27.09.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member
1.M.Srinivas S/o M.Raja Rao,
Aged about 46 years, Occ : GDS-BPM,
O/o Branch Post Office, Jakkamcherla Branch
Office, Dokiparru, Krishna District.
2.Ch.Bramarambha W/o S.Jai Ram,
Aged about 53 years, Occ: GDS-BPM,
O/o Mukkolu Branch Office, Dokiparru, Krishna District.
3.K.V.V.V.Ragava Rao S/o K.Hari Krishnaiah,
Aged about 64 years, Occ : GDS-BPM,
O/o Palankipadu Branch Office, Nimmakuru, Krishna District.
4. T.Koteshwara RAo S/o Achaiah,
Aged about 63 years, Occ : GDS-BPM,
O/o Inampudi Branch Office, Pedasanagallu, Krishna District.
5.R.S.V.Jagan Mohan Rao S/o Ram Mohan Rao,
Aged about 46 years, Occ : GDS-BPM,
O/o Ayyanki Branch Office, Pedasanagallu,
Krishna District. ...Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. K. S. V. Subba Rao)
Vs.
1.The Union of India, Rep by its Secretary,
Department of Posts, New Delhi.
2.The Department of Post rep by its Superintendent
Of Post Offices, Machilipatnam Division,
Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
3.The Post Master, Machilipatnam,
Head Post Office, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
4.The Post Master, Avanigadda,
Head Post Office, Avanigadda, Krishna District.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr.T.Hanumantha Reddy, Sr.PC for CG)
Page 1 of 9
OA No.517/2014
ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member) Through Video Conferencing:
2. The OA is filed challenging the reduction of Time related continuity allowance and the consequent recovery.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working as Grameen Dak Sewak-Branch Post Masters (for short GDS - BPM) in the respondents organization for more than 25 years, having been appointed in 1989, 1985 & 1988, barring 5th applicant, who was appointed in 1998. They were granted the pay scale of Rs.3660-70-5760 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and later, it was reduced to Rs.2745-50-4245 w.e.f. 1.4.2011 in respect of the applicants 1, 2, 4 & 5 and w.e.f. 01.07.2021 for applicant No.3 vide separate, but similar impugned orders dated 21.4.2014 and hence, the OA.
4. The contentions of the applicants are that they were paid the Time Related Continuity Allowance (for short TRCA) based on point system and since all of them crossed 100 points, they were extended the pay scale of Rs.3660-70-5760. R-2 conducted triennial review by changing the points and fixed the pay scale, which was never done hitherto. To earn the points, the value of the transactions has been enhanced as a result applicants got less points resulting in lower pay scale of Rs.2745-50-4245 and recovery from salary from 01.4.2011/01.07.2011 @ Rs.500 per month. The reduction in pay is around Rs.2000 per month. If the present business done is covered, it would enable them to get higher points.Page 2 of 9 OA No.517/2014
5. Respondents state that the GDS are paid TRCA as per their work load. The TRCA was initially paid as per Justice Talwar Committee recommendations and thereafter based on Sri R.S. Nataraj Murti Committee recommendations. The allowances are revised on a Triennial basis and when it was done in 2011-12, the applicants scored less than 75 points and thereby, TRCA was revised to Rs.2745-50-4245 w.e.f. 1.4.2011/1.7.2011.
However, when there is a drop in work-load, the scope to add additional work has to be explored and if there is no such possibility, then the pay has to be fixed in the appropriate lower scale. Audit took objection for not revising the pay as per work load and therefore, the revision along with the recovery. To revise allowances triennially, there is no provision to issue notice and the applicants are fully aware of the same. Due to review, some BPMs have got higher scale. For disbursement of old age pension, points have been added as per memo dated 16.12.2010 which was not adduced by the applicants. Respondents have cited the Hon'ble Apex judgment in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors in regard to recovery from pay.
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.
7. I. The dispute is about reduction of pay scale referred to as TRCA, by revising the allocation of points to the work done. The factual matrix of the case is that the GDS are paid TRCA as per the work load. The work load was measured in terms of points prescribed initially by the Talwar Committee as under:
Page 3 of 9 OA No.517/2014
1. For 25 Ordinary Letters 1 Point
2. For 20 Register Posts 1 Point
3. For 15 Money Orders 1 Point
4. For sale of Stamps for every 45/- Rs. 1 Point
5. For cash transaction of Rs.1000/- 1 Point
6. For 10 SB/RD/ Term Deposits 1 Point
7. 10 Rural Postal Life Insurance Trans. 1 Point
8. For 20 Telephone Bill payment 1 Point
9. Accounts Preparation 14 Points The slabs fixed by the Talwar Committee are two in number as under:
1st Slab - Rs.1280-35-1980 - For workload up to 75 points 2nd Slab - Rs.1600-40-2400 - For workload more than 75 points The applicants secured more than 75 points and hence were extended the pay scale of Rs.1600-40-2400. Later, the slabs were enhanced to 5 with the revision of points in accordance with the recommendation of Sri R.S. Nataraj Murti committee, as under:
Revised TRCA w.e.f. 01.01.2006 Workload points
st
1 Slab Rs.2745-50-4245 75 Points
2nd Slab Rs.3200-60-5000 87.5 points
3rd Slab Rs.3660-70-5760 100 points
4th Slab Rs.4115-75-6365 112.5 points
5th Slab Rs.4575-85-7125 Upto 125 points
Item of work Standard prescribed Points
Handling of For every 25 unregistered articles 1 point
unregistered articles handled in a day
Handling of Registered For every 22 registered articles 1 point
articles handled in a month
Handling of Money For every 15 money orders handled in 1 point
Orders a month
Sale of postage stamps For every Rs.900/- worth of stamps 1 point
sold in a month
Handling of cash (*) For every Rs.20,000/- Cash handled in 1 Point
a month
Savings Bank/NSC For every 10 transactions in a month 1 point
transactions
Rural Postal Life For every 10 transactions in a month 1 point
Page 4 of 9
OA No.517/2014
Insurance transactions
Collection of Telephone For every 20 bills collected in a month 1 point or any other Bills Disbursement of old For every 15 old age pension money 1 point age pensions through orders disbursed in a month money orders Disbursement of old For every 10 old age pension through 1 Point age pensions through Savings Bank in a month Savings Bank Accounts Accounts work and Fixed 14 points per month --
receipt and dispatch of mails in a month The applicants were placed in the corresponding pay scale of Rs.3660-70- 5760 based on the memo dated 9.10.2009. The triennial review was taken up in 2011-12 and found that the work load decreased making them eligible to the pay scale in the 1st slab of Rs.2745-50-4245. Besides, the scope to entrust additional work in terms of Dte. Memo dated 11.10.2014 in the context of drop in allowances was examined and there being no such possibility the allowances were ordered to be revised along with recovery of excess amount paid.
II. The contention of the applicants is that no notice was issued before reducing the allowances and ordering recovery. Respondents state that Triennial review is a regular affair and there is no provision in the rules. We do not agree for the reason that when any order with adverse civil consequences is issued, the individual has to be put on notice so that he could be heard and thereafter, a decision could be taken which may satisfy him or seek legal remedies as are permitted under law. Thus, the basic principle of Natural Justice of hearing the aggrieved before taking a decision has not been followed. Civil Consequence has a wider connotation as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following judgment. Page 5 of 9 OA No.517/2014
What is a civil consequence has been answered by this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill & Ors. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., [1978] 2 SCR 272 Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench observed: "But what is a civil consequence, let us ask ourselves, by passing verbal booby-traps? "Civil consequences" undoubtedly cover infraction of not merely property or personal rights out of civil liberties, material deprivations and nonpecuniary damages. In its comprehensive connotation, everything that affects a citizen in his civil life inflicts a civil consequence."
The reduction of pay and recovery is thus an adverse civil consequence, which has to be addressed properly in the legal domain. The respondents claimed that some GDS have been extended higher pay scale, in which case, since it is not adverse to them, no notice need to be given. Law is above executive instructions.
III. Further, as Postal Directorate letter No. 5-1/07-WS-I, dated 15.10.2012 (Page 13 of the OA), when there is likelihood of reduction in allowance on account of reduction of workload, the GDS are to be given time up to one year to improve the work load and thereafter, the TRCA has to be revised. Relevant portion of the said letter is extracted hereunder:
"The matter regarding protection of allowance of GDS BPM in the event of reduction of workload has been engaging attention of the Directorate for some time past. It has now been decided with immediate effect, that in the event of drop in the workload of the BPM to that of the lower slab, protection of allowance (TRCA) at the existing slab of TRCA of GDS BPM would be provided for an year, thereby giving an opportunity to the GDS BPM to improve the workload to the original level or higher. On completion of this one year, a special review will be conducted to assess the workload of the Branch Postmaster and if the workload after review is found to be at a reduced level, the allowance will be reduced to the corresponding TRCA slab."Page 6 of 9 OA No.517/2014
The respondents appear to have not followed this instruction and hence acted against their own rules, which is impermissible under law as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following cases:
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.Kannan and ors vs S.K. Nayyar (1991) 1 SCC 544 has held that "Action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by rules". Again in Seighal's case (1992) (1) supp 1 SCC 304 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has stated that "Wanton or deliberate deviation in implementation of rules should be curbed and snubbed." In another judgment reported in (2007) 7 SCJ 353 the Hon'ble Apex court held " the court cannot de hors rules".
Thus, the initial decision of the respondents being bad in terms of not following the rules and Principles of Natural Justice, the final decision of the respondents in ordering reduction of pay and recovery would necessarily be bad as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
A. Badrinath vs Government of Tamil Nadu And Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, 2000 (6) SCALE 618, (2000) 8 SCC 395, 2000 Supp 3 SCR 573:
28. This flows from the general principle of applicable to 'consequential orders'. Once the basis of a proceeding is gone, may be at a later point of time by order of a superior authority, any intermediate action taken in the meantime - like the recommendation of the State and by the UPSC and the action taken thereon - would fall to the ground. This principle of consequential orders which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders. In other words, where an order is passed by an authority and its validity is being reconsidered by a superior authority (like the Governor in this case) and if before the superior authority has given its decision, some further action has been taken on the basis of the initial order of the primary authority, then such further action will fall to the ground the moment the superior authority has set aside the primary order.Page 7 of 9 OA No.517/2014
B. State Of Orissa & Anr vs Mamata Mohanty on 9 February, 2011 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1272 OF 2011 ORDER BAD IN INCEPTION:
20. It is a settled legal proposition that if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironic to permit a person to rely upon a law, in violation of which he has obtained the benefits. If an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings consequent thereto will be non est and have to be necessarily set aside. A right in law exists only and only when it has a lawful origin.
(vide: Upen Chandra Gogoi v.State of Assam & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1289; Mangal Prasad Tamoli (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Narvadeshwar Mishra (Dead) by L.Rs. & Ors. , AIR 2005 SC1964; and Ritesh Tiwari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 3823). Tribunal vide interim order 07.05.2014 intervened at the admission stage and stayed the reduction of pay and allowances as well as recovery. III. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited by the respondents would not come to their rescue since their initial decision is bad in law and that they have not followed their own rules as well as violated the Principles of Natural Justice. Applicants contending that it is incorrect to raise the value of transactions to allot the points, is not acceptable since it was fixed by R.S. Nataraj Murthi committee, a body akin to the Pay Commission appointed periodically, which has gone into the details and fixed the pay scales along with the corresponding points to be secured. It is well settled that the Tribunal should not modify the recommendations of Pay Commission unless found to be against law, which is not the case in the Page 8 of 9 OA No.517/2014 instant dispute. Other contentions made by both the sides have been gone through and found them to be irrelevant to comment upon. IV. As submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants, the respondents' organization have added a number of new services at the Branch Post office level over the years with the induction of technology through computerization of Post Offices up to the grass root level like booking of speed post articles in some Branch Post office, PLI/RPLI related work where trailing commission is not paid over the years, etc. The latest being the formation of Indian Post Payment Bank wherein the Branch Post Offices, which are operated exclusively by the GDS, are playing a stellar role. Therefore, keeping these new developments in view, we hope and trust that the respondents, with an open mind, would review the work load of the applicants and accordingly, fix their TRCA by taking up with R-1. The impugned orders dated 21.04.2014, which are similar but separately issued by the 2nd respondent, vis-à-vis respective Branch Offices, where the applicants are working, are set aside since they are not in tune with rules/law as observed supra. Till then the interim order passed on 7.5.2014 will be operational. Time allowed to implement the judgment is 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above direction the OA is disposed of with no costs.
(B.V.SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 9 of 9