Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
Easwaran, J.
The respondents in the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the petitioners herein. The respondent/applicant approached the Central Administrative Tribunal aggrieved by the action of the 3rd petitioner in rejecting her request for enhancement of Time Related Continuity Allowance (in short 'TRCA'). The applicant was regularly selected as Gramin Dak Sevak MP - Enathu SO with effect from 12.03.2012. The applicant was sanctioned with TRCA in lowest grade, considering the workload at 2 hours and 57 minutes. On 25.7.2014, the applicant submitted a representation to the 3rd petitioner requesting him for enhancement of the TRCA. The same was rejected on 04.09.2013 as per Annexure-A1 order which was impugned in the Original Application. The petitioners/respondents before OP (CAT) NO. 70 OF 2018 the Central Administrative Tribunal, filed a reply statement, which is annexed as Ext.P2 in the Original Petition, contending that there was three slabs of TRCA. Later, it was found that there was an increase in the workload of the applicant and in the review, the period of workload was found to be 3 hours and 8 minutes and accordingly, the entitlement of the applicant to receive TRCA was revised with effect from 2015. The respondent/applicant filed a rejoinder controverting the contentions raised by the petitioners/respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. On a consideration of the pleadings and materials on record, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench found that the applicant was entitled for a higher rate of TRCA and ought to have been placed in the slab 2870-50-4370. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the petitioners to grant the claim from the date of the appointment of the applicant.
OP (CAT) NO. 70 OF 2018
3. It is challenging the said order that the petitioners have approached this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. On a contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/applicant, Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, submitted that the claim of the applicant has now been found to be justified, especially on the review being conducted by the Department and finding that there is an increase in the workload and the applicant is entitled to have the TRCA fixed in appropriate slab from the date of inception.
7. On a consideration of the submissions raised across the bar, we find it is indisputable that the workload of the applicant before the Tribunal had increased and accordingly she was entitled to have her claim for TRCA fixed in appropriate slab. However, the only dispute before us is as to whether the said claim should be granted from the date of appointment of the applicant or from a suitable later date. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that though the claim of the applicant was made on 25.7.2013, the petitioners/ respondents conducted the review only during the year 2015 OP (CAT) NO. 70 OF 2018 and therefore, there is a delay of two years in accepting the claim of the applicant. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to accede to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and reject the claim of the applicant altogether. In view of the fact that the applicant had put up her claim for TRCA only on 25.7.2013, the Tribunal was not justified in granting the relief as prayed for in the Original Application, from the date of appointment of the applicant.
8. In view of the above discussion, Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal dated 5.6.2017 is modified as follows:
(a) The claim of the respondent/applicant for TRCA is allowed.
(b) However, we are not inclined to accept the claim of the applicant for grant of TRCA from the date of her initial appointment. We thus limit the claim of the applicant for TRCA from the date of representation, namely 25.7.2013.
OP (CAT) NO. 70 OF 2018