Padmanav Pradhan vs Union Of India & Others

Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J)

The applicant by filing this O.A. prays for direction to the respondents to restore his TRCA in the slab of Rs. 4220-75-6470/- and to refund the already recovered amount by quashing the order under Annexure-A/6 dated 08.11.2011 (Overpayment calculation/recovery order), Annexure-A/6a (TRCA fixation of the applicant) and Annexure-A/12 dated 17.03.2017 rejection of applicant’s complaint regarding reduction of his TRCA.

As reveals from the record, the applicant was initially appointed as GDSMD, Kalyanpur BO on 29.11.1980 under a due process of selection. Subsequently, he was appointed as GDSMD/MC, Nabaghanpur BO on 26.05.2010. It is the case of the applicant that as on 31.12.2005, he was drawing his TRCA in the slab of Rs. 1740-30-2640 till revision of TRCA vide DG (Posts) O.M. dated 09.10.2009 (Annexure-A/1) as per the recommendation of R.S.Natarajan Murthy Committee vide which the TRCA slab of Rs. 1740-30-2640 was revised to Rs. 4220-75-6470/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 1st instalment of the arrears, i.e. 40%, was to be paid by 31.10.2009 and entire process of verification was directed to be completed by 31.03.2010 to avoid any future complication in disbursing the rest 60% arrears. Applicant also received the arrears in two instalments. The grievance of the applicant is that his TRCA was reduced in the slab of Rs. 3330-60-5130/- vide order dated 31.10.2011 (Annexure-A/6a) and recovery of excess payments to the tune of Rs. 10,872/- were ordered vide order dated 08.11.2011 (Annexure-A/6). The Postmaster, Nayagarh HO started recovery of Rs. 1000/- per month from the TRCA of the applicant from the month of January, 2012. It is submitted that in terms of guidelines issued vide DG(Posts) letter dated 11.10.2004 (Annexure-A/7), in the event of an GDS employee being found short of workload compared to his rate of TRCA, attempt should be made to combine the duties of other post as a measure to rationalization and where combination of duty is not feasible, the GDS may be brought from the 2nd TRCA to 1st TRCA by protecting the stage of 1st TRCA. Further, Rule 539 of Postal Manual Vol. IV (Annexure-A/8) provides mandatory modalities for fixation of TRCA, i.e. periodical review of all BOs in every three years and revision of TRCA of all GDS. Further, it is unacceptable that the workload statistics collected during the year 2010 for the period of 2005 was taken into account when no record for the year 2005 was available as the same was weeded out in terms of Rule 21 of Rules for Branch Offices Chapter 1 (Annexure-A/9). Applicant submitted representation on 07.11.2014 to Respondent No.2 against the reduction of TRCA and recovery thereof. The complaint lodged by him against non-consideration of his representation has been rejected vide letter dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure-A/12) stating therein that fixation was made strictly in adherence to the Directorate letter dated 09.10.2009 communicated vide the CPMG (O) letter dated 16.10.2009 and in accordance with the workload of the post duly verified by the DA(P), Cuttack. Ld. Counsel for the applicant submits that reducing the TRCA without any valid and cogent reason and without affording any opportunity or show cause to the applicant, is violative of principle of natural justice. Hence, he has prayed for the relief as aforesaid.

The sum and substance of the case of the respondents in their counter is that applicant in terms of the instructions, payment of TRCA to GDS is on the basis of workload performed by the by GDS. In the instant case, the respondents took statistics of the workload of the post office, in question, and it was found that the payment made to the applicant towards TRCA is in excess considering his workload and, therefore, as per the order of the competent authority, recovery of the excess payment was effected. It has been submitted that the applicant raised his grievance through online, which was duly considered by the competent authority but did not find any error in the decision for recovering the excess payment made to him. Accordingly, respondents have prayed for dismissal of this O.A.

Ld. Counsel for the applicant by drawing the attention of this Tribunal to the documents produced by the respondents under Annexure-A/3 has submitted that the statistics taken is a hypothetical one for certain period without taking into consideration the totality of the work performed by the applicant during the period in question and, thus, recovery taking into consideration such hypothetical statistics of 2005 is bad in law. Further, it has been contended that the respondents have also reached such hypothetical conclusion without taking into consideration of the actual time consumed for delivery of letters/daks and, thus, the decision taken on such hypothetical basis is not sustainable in law.

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid argument of the Ld. Counsel for the applicants by stating that the decision taken cannot be said to be hypothetical rather the said conclusion was arrived at by taking into considered the work performed by the applicant for some periods. The statistics was taken based on the departmental guidelines and, therefore, it cannot be said that the statistics reached is in any manner irregular or illegal. By filing a memo in the court on 13.09.2022, he has relied on the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 764/2015 on 03.04.2018. It has farther being submitted that this being a matter of policy the Tribunal should into the arena of the policy decision and, therefore, this O.A. is liable to be dismissed.

This Tribunal considered the rival submission of the parties and perused the records. Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done and, that, it is important to remember that the principle should not be led to the erroneous impression that justice should appear to be done that it should in fact be done is the law of the land. So far as order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 764/2015 is concerned, this Tribunal feels that the order in that O.A. is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

Taking into consideration the pleadings and the arguments of the parties, it is no doubt but true that this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction/competency to interfere in the policy decision for granting the TRCA based on the workload to the GDS. But, this Tribunal certainly has the competency and jurisdiction to find out as to whether there has been any injustice caused in the decision taking process of the matter. On perusal of the documents placed by the respondents under Annexure-3 which is the foundation of recovery of TRCA it is seen that the respondents reached the conclusion in the year 2010 on the workload of the applicant based on the data of some days of the year 2005. All are experienced that receipt and delivery of letters of a particular post office varies each day. Therefore, the statistics drawn by the respondents based on some days of work does not sound to appeal to judicial conscience, especially, when the payment of TRCA depends on the statistics of workload. The collection of statistics ought to have been on reality instead of on hypothetical basis taking into consideration some number of days of work of 2005 in the instant case as it reveals from Annexure-A/3. Further, it is necessary to put on record that to avoid the financial hardship caused to Group-C, D and retired employees taking into consideration the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc. [Civil Appeal No. 11527/2014, decided on 18.12.2014]., the Nodal Ministry of the Govt. of India, i.e. DoPT, New Delhi issued O.M. dated 02.03.2016 relating to recovery of the excess payment, if any, made to the above employees, and such excess payment is not attributable to the employee concerned but it appears that the respondents while recovering, did not pay any heed to the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court and DoPT the O.M.

This Tribunal, in the peculiar fact and circumstances, directs the respondent to consider afresh the case of the applicant for granting of TRCA. The matter is remitted back to the respondents to consider afresh regarding grating the TRCA based on the workload, in question, of the applicant, which will be ascertained afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing and considering the points now the applicant seeks to canvass. In the circumstances, stated above, without interfering into the depletion of TRCA, at this stage, the impugned orders (Annexure-A/6, A/6a and A/12) is hereby quashed. The question of refund, if any, with regard to the amount already recovered from the applicant in this connection shall be subject to the outcome of the said fresh reconsideration of the matter, in question as directed above, by the Respondent No.4/competent authority of the respondents and he shall pass necessary order in this regard. The entire drill shall be completed and intimated to the applicant in a well reasoned order within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, the O.A. is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is, accordingly, disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.