Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) O.A. 576/2007: The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, was provisionally appointed as GDS Mail Deliverer at Kallayam P.O. with effect from 24.10.2001 against the put off vacancy of the regular incumbent Shri S.Sanalkumar vide Annexure A-1 letter dated 22.10.2001. The said post was in the TRCA of Rs.1740-30-2640 and he has been continuously working from that date. He has, therefore, submitted that he is entitled to draw the periodical annual increments in the said TRCA w.e.f 1.10.2002, 1.10.2003, 1.10.2004, 1.10.2005 and 1.10.2006 but the respondents have not granted them so far, as a result he is still drawing the minimum of the TRCA at Rs.1740/-.

The Tribunal considered the case and held as under:

"9. We have heard Advocate Shri Shafik M A for the Applicant and Advocate Mrs.Mini R Menon, ACGSC for the Respondents. The question here is, if a provisionally appointed GDS continues beyond the period of one year, whether he will be entitled for increment in the TRCA in which he has been placed and the bonus as applicable to regularly appointed GDSs. This question need not bother us any further as the issue has already been settled by at least three judgments of this Tribunal, namely, OA 1197/2000(supra), 424/2003(supra) and 787/2005 (supra). In all these three OAs, it has been clearly held that the provisional GDS are entitled for the annual increments as well as Productivity Linked Bonus. Undisputedly, the applicant in this OA has been appointed to the post of GDS MD against a put off duty of the regular incumbent who was in the TRCA of Rs.1740-30-2640 w.e.f.
24.10.2001. He has been continuously working in that capacity. By Annexure A-4 pay slip of July 2007, it is seen that he is still drawing the basic TRCA of Rs.1740/-in the scale of Rs.1740-30-2640. Further, the OA 114/2004 (supra) relied upon by the Respondents cannot be applied in the present case.

10. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the aforesaid judgments, we hold that the applicant herein is also entitled to the annual increments as well as Productivity Linked Bonus. We, therefore, direct the respondents to grant the annual increments of TRCA to the applicant w.e.f. 1.10.2002 onwards in the scale of Rs.1740-302640 upto 2006. The Respondents also shall pay him the ex- gratia payment of Productivity Linked bonus from the accounting year 2001-2002 onwards till 2005-2006 at the rate applicable in terms of the Annexure A-6, Annexure A-7, Annexure A-8, Annexure A-9 and Annexure A-10 of letters of the Government of India, Department of Posts. The arrears arising out of the aforesaid directions shall be paid to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case the respondents fail to pay the arrears within the aforesaid stipulated period, they will be liable to pay the interest of 9% from the date of this order till the payments are made. With the aforesaid direction, the OA is allowed. There shall be no orders as to costs."

"4. We have heard Shri M.R.Hariraj, counsel for applicant .and Shri P.A.Aziz, ACGSC for respondents The services on 'provisional basis' and 'regular basis' are entirely on different footings. The respondents have a clear policy regarding payment of Productivity Linked Bonus and increments in TRCA to the Gramin Dak Sevaks. According to the said policy, Productivity Linked Bonus and increments in TRCA are admissible to only regular Gramin Dak Sevaks and not to those who are serving on provisional basis. It is on the basis of the aforesaid policy that the respondents have rejected the applicant's representation for grant of Productivity Linked Bonus and increments for the period of his provisional service commencing from 12.9.1999 vide impugned Annexure A-5 letter dated 15.6.2007. They have paid him both the Productivity Linked Bonus and the increments in TRCA after 19.5.2005 i.e. the date from which he has been regularly appointed. We do not find . the aforesaid action of the respondents arbitrary, unjust and illegal as alleged by the applicant. This O.A is, therefore, devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs."