Kerala High Court

Union Of India vs Ajithakumari A on 27 May, 2024

Author: Amit Rawal

Bench: Amit Rawal

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
                               &
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
     MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                    OP (CAT) NO. 70 OF 2018
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2017 IN OA NO.675 OF 2014
OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:

    1     UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
          INDIA,DEPARTMENT OF THE POST, GOVERNMENT OF
          INDIA,NEW DELHI- 110 001
    2     THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL
          KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695 033
    3     THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE
          PATHANAMTHITTA POSTAL DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689
          645.
          BY ADV SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC


RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:

          AJITHAKUMARI A
          W/O. ANEESH P, GDS MAIL PACKER,ENATHU, HAVING
          PERMANENT RESIDING AT
          PADMATHEERTHAM,THAZHATHUVADAKKU. P.O ENATHU,
          PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-691 526.
          BY ADVS.
          SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
          SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V.
     THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.05.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 OP (CAT) NO. 70 OF 2018
                                  2


             AMIT RAWAL & EASWARAN S., JJ.
               ------------------------------------
                    OP (CAT) No.70 of 2018
               -------------------------------------
            Dated this the 27th day of May, 2024

                          JUDGMENT

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.

4. We have heard Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned Central

Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners/respondents

and Sri.V.Sajith Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/applicant.

5. Sri.T.V.Vinu, learned CGC appearing for the

petitioners, submitted that the Tribunal erred in allowing the

Original Application as prayed for by the applicant. He would

contend that the applicant was sanctioned with lower TRCA,

especially taking into consideration the workload of the

applicant, which was fixed at 2 hours and 57 minutes as per the

review conducted by the Department. However, he fairly

submitted that later, the workload was found to be increased

and it was found that during the review conducted in 2015,

there was an additional workload of 3 hours and 8 minutes.

Therefore, it is submitted that the Tribunal erred in granting the

reliefs prayed for in the Original Application from the date of OP (CAT) NO. 70 OF 2018

the appointment, especially when the increase in the workload

has been subsequently found only during 2015.

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

within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt

of a certified copy of this judgment.

The Original Petition is thus partly allowed. No order as to

costs.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL JUDGE

Sd/-

EASWARAN S. JUDGE jg OP (CAT) NO. 70 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 70/2018

PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. 1/72 DATED 04.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25.07.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATISTICAL DATA OF ENATHU RELEASED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY LETTER DATED 06.08.2014.

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.07.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.6-1/2009-PE.II DATED 09.10.2009.

ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.31-5/85-PE I DATED 04.10.1985.

ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 6-1/2-9-PE-II DATED 09.10.2009.

ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.10.1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

ANNEXURE MA-1 TRUE COPY OF THE STATISTICS FOR GDSMP, ENATHU. ANNEXURE MA-2 TRUE COPY OF THE CALCULATION SHEET OF THE WORKLOAD OF THE APPLICANT.

ANNEXURE MA-3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. B-3/4(B)TFR/2017-18 DATED 18.05.2017.

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 180/00675/2014 DATED 25- 08-2014 FILED BY THE APPLICANT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 10-11- 2014, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 29-12-2014, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 21-05-2015, FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 24-05-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO ACCEPT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO. 180/00675/2014 DATED 05-06-2017 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.