Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
Ram Prakash vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2023 cites

Shri Ram Hit vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2012

5. We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not received the severance amount of Rs. 20,000/- as claimed by the respondents. No document has been furnished by the respondents showing that the applicant was treated as GDS cadre during the period from 1996 to 31.12.2010.Further, the facts and circumstances of the applicants' case are similar to Ram Hit vs Union of India &Ors decided by this Tribunal on 15.02.2019. These contentions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 6.1 The first issue to be decided is whether the applicant is governed by rule 154 (a) of the Manual of Appointment & Allowances as stated by the applicant or by the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 as stated by the respondents. A perusal of rule 154(a) brings out that the category mailman is not mentioned therein. On the other hand, a perusal of memo dated 17.07.2017 issued by the respondents shows that sanction for payment of Rs. 20,000/- has been accorded "to Shri Ram Prakash M.T.S. O/o H.R.O. R.M.S. 'O' Division Lucknow on account of Severance Amount payable to him for service rendered as GDS from 21-11- 1997 to 31-03-2011 on completion of minimum eligibility period of 10 years." A copy of the memo dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure 2 to the CA) is marked to Shri Ram Prakash, M.T.S., O/o H.R.O. R.M.S. 'O' Division Lucknow. Thus, on the basis of the documentary evidence available, it cannot be concluded that the applicant does not belong to GDS covered under GDS Rules and belongs to a separate mailman category covered under rule 154(a) of the Manual of Appointment & Allowances.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1