Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs M.Gopinathan on 18 August, 2025
1
OP CAT 6/2020
2025:KER:63994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 27TH SRAVANA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 6 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 9.8.2019 IN OA NO.886 OF 2015 OF CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY,
DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 THE CHEIF POST MASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 033.
3 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
THRISSUR DIVISION, THRISSUR - 680 001.
BY O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
SHRI.C.DINESH, CGC
SHRI ARJUN PADMANABHAN
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:
M.GOPINATHAN, AGED 45 YEARS
S/O LATE RAMADAS, GDS MAIL PACKER, PAZHANJI SUB OFFICE,
THRISSUR POSTAL DIVISION, RESIDING AT MOOLAYIL
HOUSE,AKKIKAVU, KUNNAMKULAM P.O., PIN - 680 503.
BY ADV SRI.SHAFIK M.A.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.08.2025, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP CAT 6/2020
2025:KER:63994
JUDGMENT
(Dated this the 18th day of August, 2025) Basant Balaji J., The Petitioners were the Respondents in O.A. No.180/00886/2015 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and the Respondent was the applicant. The Respondent filed the O.A. for the following reliefs:
"(i) TO call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-10 and to quash A-1 being illegal, arbitrary and against the directions of A-9 order;
(ii) To issue appropriate direction or order directing the 1st respondent to restore the TRCA of the applicant which he was drawing upto the month of June, 2010 and to continue to pay the TRCA with annual increments admissible and to refund the TRCA unlawfully recovered from the pay of the applicant;
(iii) To issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondents to pay the applicant the arrears of TRCA and allowances becoming payable on restoration of the TRCA with annual increments for the period from the month of June, 2010 in the revised TRCA of Rs.3635-
65-5585 till the date of restoration of the TRCA with interest;
(iv) To issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondents to pay the applicant the 2nd installment of 60% arrears as provided in paragraph 11 of Annexure A-
3 OP CAT 6/20202025:KER:63994 3 with interest immediately, at any rate, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal;
(v) To issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondents to fix the TRCA of the applicant in the revised TRCA of Rs.3635-65-5585 and to fix his pay at the stage of Rs.4350/- as on 01.01.2006 with consequential benefits provided in Annexure A-3 with annual increments admissible and to grant arrears of TRCA and allowances becoming payable on re-fixation of TRCA in the revised TRCA of Rs.3635-65-5585 with interest from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment;
(vi) To pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case; and
(vii) To award costs of this proceedings."
2. The Applicant, initially an Extra Departmental Mail Packer (now GDS Mail Packer) in Pazhanji, was initially earning a TRCA (Time Related Continuity Allowance) of ₹1545-25-2020/- starting from 1 February 1990. Following the recommendations of the R.S. Nataraja Murti Committee, his revised TRCA was set at ₹3635-65-5585/-, which included a 40% fitment benefit of ₹2808/-. As his basic pay had reached ₹1920/-, his pay was supposed to be fixed at ₹4350/- in the new TRCA starting from 1 January 2006. However, his pay was incorrectly fixed at ₹4155/- on 1 September 2009. This amount was then reduced to ₹3765/- and then again to ₹3556/-, a figure that fell below the minimum TRCA of ₹3635-65-5585/-. These 4 OP CAT 6/2020 2025:KER:63994 reductions were made without any prior notice or a chance for the Applicant to be heard.
3. The Applicant filed a representation on 28 July 2010, to highlight this issue. In response, he was informed via a letter dated 5 October 2010, that the reduction and recovery of the "overpaid" TRCA were made based on an audit party's review. While the Applicant received the first 40% installment of arrears, the remaining 60% was adjusted by the Petitioners to recover the alleged excess payment. Aggrieved by this, the Applicant filed O.A. No.1163 of 2012 before the Tribunal. On 15 September 2014, the Tribunal noted merit in his case and directed him to submit a detailed representation within one month. It also ordered the Petitioners to issue a reasoned order within two months.
4. Upon receiving the directions, the Petitioners issued Ext.P1 (Annex.A1) order on 26 December 2014, rejecting the request. The Respondent then challenged this new order before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after reviewing both sides of the argument and referencing its previous findings in O.A. No.1163/2012, concluded that the rejection was made without due consideration. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Petitioners to restore the Respondent's pay to ₹4,350/- in the TRCA of ₹3,635-65-5,585, effective from 1 January 2006, along with all consequential benefits and annual increments. Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the Petitioners to refund the recovered TRCA and disburse the outstanding 60% arrears within three 5 OP CAT 6/2020 2025:KER:63994 months. Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioners have now filed this original petition before this Court.
5. Sri.Arjun Padmanabhan, representing Sri.C. Dinesh, Senior Central Government Counsel, contends that the Tribunal's decision was made without proper consideration of the facts. He asserts that the Tribunal simply approved the original application and ordered the restoration of pay and release of arrears without a thorough review of the case's merits or the arguments presented in support of Ext.P1 (Annex.A1) order. The counsel further claims that the Tribunal's order merely restated its prior observations from O.A. No.1163 of 2012, asserting complete agreement with its own previous findings. Since the Respondent was given an opportunity to file a new representation, and the subsequent order from the Petitioners was challenged, the counsel argues that the Tribunal should have provided explicit reasons for not accepting the rationale detailed in Ext.P1(A1). Therefore, he concludes that the Tribunal's order requires intervention from this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the Respondent countered the Petitioners' arguments by pointing out that in the previous litigation, which concluded with the order dated 15 September 2014, the Tribunal had already found merit in the Respondent's case. The Tribunal had previously declared that the arbitrary re-fixation of his pay without a chance for him to be heard was invalid. The counsel argued that the Respondent's pay should not have been 6 OP CAT 6/2020 2025:KER:63994 re-fixed based solely on an audit objection without a proper review of the matter. The representation filed by the Respondent was summarily rejected by the Petitioners, who simply repeated the arguments they had made in the first round of litigation. The Tribunal, taking this into account, concluded that the Respondent was indeed entitled to the relief he sought.
7. The Tribunal disposed of O.A. No.1163 of 2012 because it found that the pay reduction and arbitrary re-fixation were carried out without giving the Applicant an opportunity to explain his position. The Tribunal ruled that the Petitioners' actions were unreasonable and, therefore, directed them to reconsider the matter after the Applicant submitted a detailed representation. The Petitioners then issued Ext.P1(Annex.A1) order based on this directive. However, when the present original application was filed to challenge Ext.P1 (Annex.A1), the Tribunal failed to review the merits of the reasons for the rejection. Instead, it simply upheld its previous observation and ordered the restoration of the Applicant's pay.
8. The argument presented is that since a detailed order was issued rejecting the Respondent's representation, the Tribunal should have evaluated the case on its own merits, rather than merely relying on its previous findings. There is no clear reasoning as to why the Tribunal chose to interfere with Ext.P1(A1) order. Though in the earlier round in O.A. No. 1163 of 2012, which included an observation in the Respondent's favour, its ultimate directive was only for the Respondent to submit a new representation, which 7 OP CAT 6/2020 2025:KER:63994 the Petitioners were then to consider. We also note that Ext.P1(A1) was not explicitly set aside. Given these circumstances, the only recourse is to set aside Ext.P5 and return the case for fresh consideration.
9. The original petition is allowed, setting aside Ext.P5 order dated 9 August 2019, in O.A. No.180/00886/2015 and remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing. The Respondent has the option to ask the Tribunal for an expedited hearing, as the original case was filed back in 2015.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI JUDGE SKP/dl 8 OP CAT 6/2020 2025:KER:63994 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 6/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 180/00886/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18-10-2015 BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P1(A1) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. A/253 DATED 26-12-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A2) TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2009.
EXHIBIT P1(A3) TRUE COPY OF THE D.G. POSTS OM NO. 6-1/2009-PE II DATED 09-10-2009.
EXHIBIT P1(A4) TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2009.
EXHIBIT P1(A5) TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2010.
EXHIBIT P1(A6) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28-07-2010 OF THE APPLICANT WITH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT P1(A7) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. A/GDSCOMMN/09/REGN DATED 05-10-2010 ISSUED BY THE 32RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1(A8) TRUE COPY OF THE PAY SLIP OF THE APPLICANT FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2011.
EXHIBIT P1(A9) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-09-2014 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. NO. 1163/2012 EXHIBIT P1(A10) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-10-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO.
180/00886/2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18- 01-2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2(R1) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. 14-27A/EDA/REVN/GNL/1998 DATED 18-04-2000.
EXHIBIT P2(R2) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. A/GDS COMMN/09 DATED 15- 10-2009.
EXHIBIT P2(R3) TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO. A/GDS/COMMN/09 DATED 22-06- 2010.
EXHIBIT P2(R4) TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED TRCA SLAB APPLICABLE WITH
EFFECT FROM 01-01-2006 COMMUNICATED VIDE
DIRECTORATE LETTER NO. 6-1/2009-REII.
EXHIBIT P2(R5) TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING DATED 20-10-2009
FURNISHED BY THE APPLICANT.
EXHIBIT P2(R6) TRUE COPY OF DIRECTORATE LETTER NO. DOP NO. 39-41
14-16/2001/PAP(PT) DATED 11-10-2004.
EXHIBIT P2(R7) TRUE COPY OF R.M.NO. 3/SIP/GDS/REV/KKM 42-45 DATED
9
OP CAT 6/2020
2025:KER:63994
12-01-10 ISSUED BY INTERNAL AUDIT INSPECTION PARTY.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER TO THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO. 180/00886/2015 DATED 08-02-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO. 180/00886/2015 DATED 17-03-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO. 180/00886/2015 DATED 09-08-2019 ISSUED BY THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.