Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Sunil Kumar Dubey vs D/O Post on 10 December, 2021
(Reserved on 03.12.2021)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD.
Dated : This the 10 day of December 2021
Original Application No. 330/01371/2015
Hon'ble Ms. Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)
Sunil Kumar Dubey, aged about 58 years, S/o Late Jai Ganesh Dubey,
R/o Kali Mandir Road, Bahjohi Town, District Sambhal.
. . .Applicant
By Adv : Shri A.D. Singh
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication,
Department of Post, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.
2. D.P.S/PMG, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Moradabad Division,
Moradabad.
. . .Respondents
By Adv: Shri Prabhash Pandey.
ORDER
The Applicant has filed the instant original application challenging the order dated 09.06.2015 (Annexure A-I) whereby the claim of the applicant for TRCA and allowances of duty for Beat No.3 during the period August 2012 to September 2013 has been rejected by the Respondent No. 3.
2. The applicant was appointed as EDA/GDS on 03.07.1991 and has been performing his duty since then. It is submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the post of GDS has become a civil post and the Govt. of India, vide order dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure A-
2) revised the TRCA of GDS Mail Deliverer having work load more than 3 Page 1 of 5 hours 45 minutes per day from 1740-30-2640 to Rs. 4200-75-6470 w.e.f 01.01.2006. The claim of the applicant is that in spite of being covered by the implementation of recommendations of R.S. Nataraja Murti Committee Report, the Applicant has not been granted the said pay scale. He further submits that the juniors of the applicant are getting the said pay scale and he is being discriminated against the same.
3. The respondents have filed a Suppl. Affidavit on 09.11.2021 in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 17.02.2021 whereby the contents of original reply have been reiterated and the respondents have annexed a duty sheet of the applicant for the relevant period alongwith details, desired by this Tribunal.
4. On 17.02.2021, this Tribunal has passed the following order: -
"List revised.
Shri A.D. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Prabhash Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, both are present.
Before the arguments, my attention was drawn to the order sheet dated 11.07.2019 whereby learned counsel for the respondents was directed to seek instruction from the respondents on the following points and inform the Tribunal:-
1. What are the villages covered in Beat No. 2 in which the applicant distributes the mail in its entirety which may includes the city or village area.
2. The formula of calculating the workload of GDS to deliver the mails.
3. What is the population of Beat No. 2 area?
The respondents have filed their supplementary counter affidavit for informing the same. However, in the information submitted by them vide letter dated 27.07.2019, the formula for calculating the workload of GDS to deliver the mails has not been supplied. A further clarification is also required with regard to the issue arising from the submission made by the respondents in their Page 2 of 5 supplementary counter affidavit that presently applicant - Sunil Kumar Dubey is working in Beat No. 3 and he is doing the work of delivery of mails in the area which is 3.8 Km only, whereas the population of Beat No. 3 is 22506. In this situation, what will be criteria to determine the workload?"
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has re-asserted the contentions made in the OA. He has made following submissions in support of his contentions: -
(I). that in spite of the applicant being declared a civil servant by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he is not getting the desired pay scale of Rs. 4220-75-6470.
(ii). that he is being discriminated from his juniors, who are getting the pay scale of Rs. 4220-75-6470 and this ground has not been considered by the respondents in the impugned order.
(iii). that the duty hours of the applicant were from 9 am to 5 pm and it has wrongly been stated by the respondents that he had worked for less than 3 hours 45 minutes in the stipulated period.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the applicant has not been discriminated against any of his juniors. Rather, in view of the fact that the applicant was declared as civil servant in terms of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the relevant pay scale was extended to the applicant. Controverting the third ground raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the Respondents has relied upon the duty sheet annexed with Suppl. Affidavit filed on 09.11.2021.
7. We have learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. It cannot be denied that the Applicant not has been treated a Civil Servant as the regular pay scale has been extended to him. With respect Page 3 of 5 to the second ground i.e. discrimination against the juniors a perusal of the OA clearly shows that this ground has not been taken in the O.A at all by the Applicant, The respondent counsel has however controverted the same. May it as it be.
9. Evaluating the third ground, on perusal of the duty sheet annexed with the additional Affidavit as well as the order dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure A-2), it cannot be disputed that the applicant had worked for less than 3 hours and 45 minutes i.e. 3 hours and 39 minutes to be precise and accordingly, he has been given the TRCA commensurate with the slab. The same has been deliberated upon in light of page 26 of the OA and the duty sheet of the Applicant. There no reason to question the duty sheet annexed by the respondents, which reads as follow: -
"Statistical Statement of Consolidated allowances of GDS MD Name of BO - Bahjoi Name of Account Office:- Bahjoi Beat No. 03 Name of Head Office : - Moradabad Name of GDS MD : - Sunil Kumar Dubey Sl. Items of 01.07.19 02.07.19 04.07.19 05.07.19 06.07.19 08.07.19 Total average factor Total No. work time required 1 Unregd 11 09 15 19 13 12 79 12.66 0.72 9.11 Mails 2 Regd/Parcel 42 27 25 18 17 14 143 23.83 2.5 59.57 Mails 3 Speed Post 65 26 26 15 26 21 179 29.83 2 59.66 4 Regd./Parcel _ 01 01 02 04 66 4.5 2.97 Mails under Spl. List
5. VP/CD 01 01 0.16 3 0.48 Articles delivery
6. VP/CD 03 03 0.5 2.5 1.25 Articles returned 7 MO Paid 2 8 MO returned 3.5 9 Unpaid 2 articles
10 Insured 3.5 articles delivery 11 Insured 2.5 Articles returned 12 Distance 06 06 05 05 04 05 31 5.16 12 61.92 Travelled (on foot) (Km) 13 Distance 04 04 04 04 04 05 25 4.16 6 24.96 Travelled Page 4 of 5 (Bycycle) (Km) 14 No. of bags 6 exchanged 15 Opening of 1.5 letter boxes Total mins 219.92 Total time= 3 hrs 39 minutes"
10. The relevant portion of order dated 09.10.2009 is also being quoted below: -
Sl. Category of GDS Pre-revised Revised TRCA 40% fitment to be No TRCA w.e.f. 01.01.2006 allowed 4 GDS Mail Deliverer /Stamp Rs. 1375-25- Rs. 3330-60- Rs. 750 Vendor (work load up to 3 hrs 2125 5130 45 mts 5 GDS Mail Deliverer / Stamp Rs. 1740-30- Rs.4220-75-6470 Rs. 936 Vendor (work load more than 3 2640 hrs 45 mts)
11. In view of the forgoing facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the OA and does not warrant any interference. The OA is dismissed accordingly.
12. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Ms. Pratima K Gupta) Member (J) Anand...
Page 5 of 5