Kerala High Court
K.Gopinathan vs Superintendent Of Post Offices on 15 March, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1945
OP (CAT) NO. 237 OF 2016
OA NO.438 OF 2013 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM
BENCH
PETITIONER/S:
K.GOPINATHAN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.LATE KUMARA PILLAI, AGED 59 YEARS, GRAMIN DAK
SEVAK MAIL DELIVER II, THIRUNELLUR BRANCH POST
OFFICE, THIRUNELLUR-688541.
BY ADV P.M.BINOY KRISHNA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
INDIA, ALAPPUZHA DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA-688 012.
2 THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3 INSPECTOR OF POSTS, CHERTHALA SUB DIVISION,DEPARTMENT
OF POSTS, CHERTHALA-688524.
4 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK
BHAVAN,SANSAD NARG, NEW DELHI-110116.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.V.VINU, CGC
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2024,
THE COURT ON 15.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(CAT) No.237/2016
..2..
JUDGMENT
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.
This original petition has been filed by the petitioner/applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenging the order dated 26.02.2016 in OA No.438 of 2013.
2. The petitioner is working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliver (GDSMD) at Thirunallur Branch Post Office (BPO). The case of the petitioner is that he has not been granted additional combined duty allowance for the down trip while performing duty for bringing mail bags in addition to his duty as GDSMD since 15.10.2008 to January, 2013. The duty time of the petitioner/applicant is from 9 am to 2 pm a day as GDSMD and it was treated as a part-time employment. It was pointed out that a GDS is not required to perform duty beyond a maximum period of five hours in a day as per the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. From 15.10.2008 onwards, the petitioner was entrusted with additional duty of carrying mail bags from Pallippuram Sub OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..3..
Office (SO) to Thirunallur Branch Post Office (BPO), 15 days in each month, besides his five-hours-duty as GDSMD in Beat No.II. However, he was not paid additional duty allowance/conveyance duty allowance or even the actual bus fare he had incurred for bringing mail bags from Pallipuram SO to Thirunallur BPO. While so, as per Annex.A4 order dated 15.03.2013, one of the posts of GDSMD of Thirunallur BPO was reduced, resulting in transfer of one Sri.K.Mohanan Nair, who was working in Beat No.I of Thirunallur BPO, to Varanam SO; and the petitioner was directed therein to manage delivery of both beats of Thirunallur BPO, stating that the delivery area is found to be a normal one. Pursuant to Annex.A4 order, he had to travel around 60 kms per day, for which no facilities were provided to him. The petitioner was paid for the up trip, but for the down trip, he was not given any conveyance or duty allowance. It is alleged that the said Sri.K.Mohanan Nair was being paid some amount towards combined duty allowance for the down-trip pursuant to an order in OA No.969/2010, which was denied to the petitioner/applicant as per Annex.A6. Aggrieved by this, he approached the Tribunal with the original application seeking OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..4..
the following reliefs;
"(a) Set aside Annexure-A6
(b) Set aside Annexure-A4 only in so far as it directs performance of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliver in the two Beats at a time without giving him proper and adequate facilities, which is impossible of performance by the applicant.
(c) Issue necessary directions to the Respondents to grant and disburse to the applicant mail carrier duty allowance at the rate of Rs.250/- per month for his performance of additional work as Mail Carrier (down-trip) from Pallipuram S.O. to Thirunellur BPO, performed since 15-10-2008 to January, 2013 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(d) Issue necessary directions to the respondents to grant and disburse to the applicant the actual amount of bus fare he had spent for official work of bringing mail bags (down- trip) from Pallipuram sub office to Thirunellur Brach Post Office during the period in between 15.10.2008 till January, 2013 at the earliest.
(e) Award costs of these proceedings to the applicant."
The Tribunal, after consideration of the issue, disposed of the original application directing the applicant to provide proof to the respondents by production of bus ticket, if the journey from Thirunallur to Pallipuram was by bus. The other reliefs sought for were rejected by the Tribunal. Hence, this original petition.
3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, contending that the work of mail conveyance from Pallipuram SO to Thirunallur BPO on alternate months was entrusted OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..5..
with the petitioner/applicant as part of his duty since his workload was less than five hours and he was drawing the maximum Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA). According to them, combined duty allowance is distinct from the allowance for combination of duties. It is contended that the petitioner/applicant was not entrusted with any additional work of another post as there was no such post as GDSMC at Thirunallur BPO and the amount paid to Sri.K.Mohanan Nair was in due compliance with the order of the Tribunal in OA No.969/2010. It is further contended that the allowance for combination of duties is payable to the GDS only when he is performing the duty of mail conveyance or mail delivery of another post. It is pointed out that as per Directorate letter number 6-1/2009-PE-II dated 09.10.2009, combined duty allowance is payable only to the BPM performing delivery or conveyance duties or both. It is further pointed out that the petitioner/applicant is being paid cycle maintenance allowance @ Rs.60/- with effect from 09.10.2009 to 31.12.2010, Rs.75/- from 01.01.2011 to 31.12.2013 and Rs.90/- from 01.01.2014 and it is still continuing and the payment of bus fare for conveyance of mail is not covered by OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..6..
any rule or administrative order on the subject. According to them, since the total working hours of the petitioner/applicant is below five hours and he was not doing the duties attached to another post, he is not entitled for combined duty allowance or any additional remuneration for conveyance of mail. It is contended that there is no provision to provide bicycles for each and every GDSMD to cover the beat for delivery/mail conveyance. It is further contended that the workload of the petitioner/applicant was verified through a responsible officer; and as per the workload calculation sheet, the workload including conveyance of mail is less than five hours; and two GDSMD posts of Thirunallur were found to be in excess; and since the petitioner/applicant was the senior, the other GDSMD, Sri.K.Mohanan Nair, was transferred to the Varanam SO under Cherthala Head Office. Thereafter, the distance transverse for mail delivery was verified through a responsible officer and finding that there is a justification for two GDSMDs, Sri.K.Mohanan Nair was again accommodated in the vacant post of GDSMD-II, Thirunallur with effect from 16.01.2014.
4. Heard Sri.Binoy Krishna P.M., learned counsel for OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..7..
the petitioner/applicant; and Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central Government Counsel.
5. The case of the petitioner is that he was asked to perform additional duty besides his GDSMD duty of Beat No.II and he was not paid any conveyance duty allowance for the down trip. It is the further case of the petitioner that similar benefits, which were granted to Sri.K.Mohanan Nair who was working in Beat No.I in the same post office on the basis of the orders in OA No.969/2010, were denied to the petitioner/applicant. Further, he was directed to perform duties of the said Sri.K.Mohanan Nair as well, who was transferred to Varanam SO. However, as could be seen from the counter affidavit, Sri.K.Mohanan Nair was redeployed to Thirunallur BPO with effect from 16.01.2014 finding that there is justification for two GDSMDs in the said post office. The applicant had to manage both beats, which was a heavy workload and could not be covered within the single duty of five hours. The petitioner further stated that he had to travel by bus on several occasions and had to spend from his meager income.
6. Admittedly, the respondents are paying Rs.250/- for OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..8..
the up trip to the Branch Post Office, but no amount is paid for the down trip. The petitioner/applicant was being paid an amount of Rs.60/- towards cycle maintenance allowance for a month, which was subsequently increased to Rs.75 and then to Rs.90/-Rs.90/- from 2014 onwards. On 16.01.2014, Sri.K.Mohanan Nair was redeployed to Thirunallur BPO finding that there is justification for deploying two GDSMDs in the said post office. It is the case of the petitioner/applicant that he was having heavy workload and could not finish his duty in five hours being a part-time deployment, and was burdened with the duty of both beats. According to him, though he performed additional duty of carrying mail bags from Pallipuram to Thirunallur since 2008, a claim was put forward before the respondents only in the year 2013 on coming to know that Sri.K.Mohanan Nair was granted such benefits in compliance with the orders of the Tribunal.
7. The employees like the petitioner/applicant are being paid only a meager amount and they cannot be expected to spend the amount from their income in the course of their duty. If the petitioner/applicant is asked to perform additional duties, which he is not expected to do, it is only OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..9..
reasonable that the respondents compensate him for the additional work. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/applicant was asked to do additional duties from 15.10.2008 and no allowance was paid for the down trip since then. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/applicant had performed the additional duty of carrying mail bags from Pallipuram to Thirunallur BPO (down trip) besides his duties of Beat No.II. The petitioner/applicant could not produce any evidence to prove that he used to travel by bus spending Rs.10/- per day in the course of his duties. However, by bus or by cycle, the petitioner/applicant was made to do additional work in his part-time engagement. Therefore, it is only just and reasonable that the petitioner/applicant, being a low paid employee, should not be forced to pay from his pocket on official work and the respondents ought to have taken an appropriate action for paying allowance for the additional work done by him. It is not fair to expect an employee to bear the burden of official expenses from his meager income, especially, when it negatively impacts their overall financial stability. The officials cannot differentiate the employees or pick and choose among them, who are doing the very same OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..10..
job. No proper reasoning was given by the respondents concerned in Annex.A6 for rejecting the request of the petitioner/applicant for conveyance allowance.
8. The petitioner/applicant was paid only the cycle maintenance allowance of Rs.60/- per month and it was increased to Rs.75/- and then to Rs.90/- in the year 2014, which cannot be treated as allowance for doing additional duty. Cycle maintenance allowance given by the respondents cannot be considered as allowance for the additional duty performed by the petitioner/applicant. The reasons given by the respondents are that his working hours are 4 hours and 48 minutes; and he is being paid TRCA for five hours; and hence, no additional payment for mail conveyance in the form of mail carrier duty allowance or combined duty allowance can be paid. On some days, he might have finished the work within the five hours of duty, but, it cannot be said that he never worked more than five hours a day. Whatever it may, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was asked to do additional work. Denying an allowance in such a scenario is not the proper approach. The well being of the work force has to be given priority and thus, a content and financially stable OP(CAT) No.237/2016 ..11..
employee is an asset to the success and growth of the organisation. It is a fact that the petitioner approached the Tribunal only after coming to know about the reimbursement of the amount given to Sri.Mohanan Nair. The petitioner herein is also similarly placed employee. The respondents cannot deny the claim made by the petitioner herein. Production of bus tickets from 2008 onwards for claiming the conveyance allowance by the petitioner may be an impossible task. The respondents have to follow a uniform procedure in respect of payment thereof. The future claims for the combined duty allowance for down trip (extra work) shall strictly be on production of proof, if not otherwise entitled.
Therefore, the OP(CAT) is disposed of, as follows; A. The competent officer among the respondents, shall reconsider the claim of the petitioner for payment of combined duty allowance for the down trip from Pallipuram SO to Thirunallur BPO during the period from 15.10.2008 to January, 2013 and disburse the amount by taking a lenient view, as taken in the case of Sri.Mohanan Nair, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. OP(CAT) No.237/2016
..12..
B. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of the judgment before the respondents for compliance.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/-
SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE bka/-
OP(CAT) No.237/2016
..13..
APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 237/2016 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO A/437 DATED 1.3.2013 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO DIG 10/REDUCTIO/ TRANSFER/12-13 DATED AT CHERTHALA DATED 15.3.2013 ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.7.12 OBTAINED UNDER RTI FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.8.2012 IN OA NO 969/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 5.2.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.3.2013 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, DATED 09/10/2012 ANNEXURE R2 VERIFIED DELIVERY STATISTICS OF GDSMD 11 ANNEXURE R3 WORK LOAD CALCULATION OF GDSMD 11 ANNEXURE R4 WORK LOAD CALCULATION OF MAIL CONVEYANCE ENTRUSTED TO GDSMD 11.
ANNEXURE R5 TOTAL WORK LOAD CALCULATION FOR THE PERIOD FROM 15.10.2008 TO JANUARY ANNEXURE R6 TRUE COPY OF DIRECTORATE LETTER NO 67- 1/2009-PE-11 DATED 9.10.2009 EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2016 IN O.A.NO.438/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. OP(CAT) No.237/2016
..14..
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.438/2013, FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.5.2013 IN O.A.NO.438/2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 18.11.2013, IN O.A.438/13 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER IN I.A.438/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, EKM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT IN I.A.438/13
BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, EKM., FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.