.jpeg)
Before The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench O.A. No. OF 2010 Applicants: - 1. National represented by its General Secretary P.U. Muraleedharan , aged 49 years, S/o Late A.K. Sivasankaran Nair, GDSMP, Downhill Manjeri Division, residing at "Geethanjali", Munduparamba 2. R. Rajendranathan Pillai, aged 52 years, S/o Late Raman Nair, GDSBPM, Plachery Valacode, Pathanamthitta Division, 691 331 residing at " Sree Anjaneyam", Bharanikavu, Punalur PO, Kollam District. 3. Mathew. P.Varghese, aged 33 years S/o. Gheevarghese Vaidyan, GDSBPM, Vilakkupara BO, Pathanamthitta Division, Pathanamthitta Residing at " Padinjare Veedu", Alayamon, Anchal, Kollam District. Vs Respondents: 1. The Director General Post/ Secretary Posts, M/o Communication and IT, 2. The Assistant Director General (Estt), Department of Posts, M/o Communication and IT, 3. The Chief Postmaster General, Department of Posts, Address for service of the Applicant is that of their counsel M/S. Shafik. M. Abdulkhadir, K.M. Anthru, R. Sreeraj, Shameena Salahudheen, Safiya Shafik, & P. C. Kunjappan, Advocates, Shafik Abdulkhadir Associates, Lisie Hospital Road, Cochin 682 018 and the Address for service of the respondents is that of their respective address as shown above. Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 details of the application. 1. Particulars of the Order Against Which The Application Is Made:- (i) Letter No. 14-6/87-PAP dated 15.12.2009 issued by the 2nd Respondent. (Annexure A-1) (ii) Letter No. 6-1/2009-PE.II dated 4.1.2010 issued by the 2nd Respondent. (Annexure A-2) 2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal: - The Applicants declare that the Subject matter of the application is with in the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. 3. Limitation The Applicants further declares that the application is within the limitation period prescribed in Sec. 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 4. Facts of the Case 1. The applicants are aggrieved by the reduction in their scales of TRCA itself, presently being implemented on the basis of a new yardstick applied arbitrarily in the point system, adopted for evaluating the workload of a Post office. The applicants are aggrieved by the Letter No. 14-6/87-PAP dated 15.12.2009 issued by the 2nd Respondent, to this effect. The applicants are also aggrieved by the Letter No. 6-1/2009-PE.II dated 4.1.2010 issued by the 2nd Respondent, issued to the Federation of the 1st applicant union refusing to correct this anomaly. The true copies of the said letter is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-1 and A-2 respectively. 2. The applicants are presently working as the GDS, in the respective offices shown in the cause title. The Ist applicant is the Kerala unit of the All India union of GDS affiliated to the Federation of National Postal Organisations. It is being represented by the Circle Secretary who is also the All India General Secretary. The 2nd and 3 rd applicants are GDSBPMs working in the Offices shown in the cause title. They have been drawing meager amount as wages in the form of Time related continuity allowance (TRCA for short) revised in 1997 as per the recommendations of Savoor Committee report. Though the GDS is permitted to take up other avocations also, none of them can afford to take up other engagements since the working hours clashes with any other jobs. They are depending on the TRCA, which they earn for their livelihood. Since the TRCA has not been revised as is done in the case of other central Government employees by the periodical pay commissions, the Unions as well as the GDS were requesting the 1st Respondent for a periodical revision, compared to the cost of living which has gone high up, in the country in the recent past. Consequently a one-man committee was set up for revision of wage structure of the GDS headed by one Sri. R.S. Nataraja Murti in the year 2007. The Said committee has submitted a report on 29.10.2009, recommending a revised structure of TRCA for various GDS posts. The Department has accepted the same and has issued Letter No. 6-1/2009-PE.II dated 9.10.2009 revising the TRCA of various cadre of GDS. In fcat as can be seen from the same, the committee has recommended 5 scales for BPM depending on the workload. The truecopy of the Letter No. 6-1/2009-PE.II dated 9.10.2009 issued by the Deputy Director General of the 1st Respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-3. As can be seen from A-3, the earlier TRCA of Branch Post masters which was in the scale of Rs. 1280-35-1980 for 3 hours of work and Rs.1600-40-2400 for more than 3 hours of work has been revised to 5 scales. However as per a letter No. 6-1/2009-P.E.II dated 10.12.2009, it was clarified that the present incumbents may be placed in the 1 & 2 scales only and the placement in the subsequent scales corresponding to 87.5 points, 112.5 points and 125 points be done after a fresh assessment of workload. The truecopy of the said letter is also produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-4. 3. It is respectfully submitted that the TRCA of the post of GDS is fixed as per the hours of work which inter-alia depends on the articles handled in the office, on the basis of a points system as per a letter No. 14-6/87-PAP dated 15.5.1987. As per the same, existing method adopted for assessing the workload by point system, the following guideline is adopted for arriving at a total point for a post in a month;
As can be seen from the same if the BPM handles 20 Registered articles in a month, 1 point is reckoned. Like wise for 15 Money orders, again 1 point, for 25 ordinary letters-1 point, For handling cash of Rs.1000/-, again 1 point, for selling 45 stamps in a month-1 point, for one pension payment-1 point, and for total accounting of the BO, 14 points is awarded. The pre-revised TRCA of the BPM as stated earlier was only in 2 scales. As per the same The TRCA being drawn by the 2nd applicant is assessed as follows: Name of BO – Plachery BO, Pathanamthitta Division
Hours of BO : 4 hours Allowance : Rs. 1600/- 4. However now as per Annexure A-1, the points assessed for cash handling has been drastically reduced to 1 point for every Rs. 20,000/- from the existing criteria of 1 point for every Rs. 1000/-. The 2nd applicant is already drawing the salary as per the A-3 revision in the scale of 4575-85-7125 with effect from October 2009. The arrears with effect from 1.1.2006 is also drawn and disbursed to the 2nd applicant during October 2009. The 2nd applicant, on application of the new point system will only be placed in the 2nd scale of TRCA at the rate of Rs.3200/- only as can be seen from below. Name of BO – Plachery BO, Pathanamthitta Division
As per this point system, the TRCA will now be reduced to the 2nd stage at Rs. 3200/- scale only. The 2nd applicant who is the GDSBPM of Vilakkupara BO, in the Pathanamthitta Division is also facing Drastic reduction in his TRCA even after the much sought after revision of TRCA is implemented. The figures relating to his TRCA assessed on the point system on the new and old methods is as follows; Name of BO – Vilakkupara BO, Pathanamthitta Division
Hours of BO : 4 hours Allowance : Rs. 1600/- Workload as per revised norms for cash transaction (Rs 20000 =1 point) Name of BO – Vilakkupara BO, Pathanamthitta Division
It is respectfully submitted that the 3rd applicant was drawing the TRCA at the stage of Rs.1840 in the scale of 1600-4-2400 prior to A-3 revision. After A-3 was implemented in the circle his TRCA was fixed at Rs. 4830 plus allowances in the scale of Rs. 4575-85-7125. The truecopy of the pay slip for the month of December 2009 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A-5. 5. It is respectfully submitted that the present proposal of the revision of the point system making it 1 point for Rs.20,000/- handled, will reduce the TRCA attached to many offices with more than 75 points, which was drawing the 2nd pre-revised scale, which was replaced with 3rd and 4th scale as per A-3 revised scales, will be drastically affected. For example the TRCA attached to GDSBPM Eruvatty in Kannur Division is the 2nd scale of Rs.1600/- with 141 points considering the workload. A table showing the application of previous criteria and the proposed one as per A-1 letter is shown below. Name of BO – Eruvatty BO
Hours of BO : 4 hours Allowance : Rs.1600/- Workload as per revised norms for cash transaction (Rs 20000 =1 point)
Existing revised allowance : 125.above – Rs.4575/3660 As can be seen from above if cash transaction point is taken as Rs. 20,000 instead of Rs. 1000, the points arrived at for exactly the same work as before is only 71 which will revise and reduce the allowance as Rs. 2745/- (First Stage) only, and the incumbent will be drawing less pay than what he was drawing even prior to A-3 revision. . 6. In the said circumstances anticipating the drastic reduction in TRCA, even after the revision as per A-3, the Federation of the 1st applicant Under the above circumstances the applicants are left with no other alternative efficacious remedy other than to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. 5. Grounds for relief with legal provisions: (A) The action of the Respondents in revising and restricting the TRCA to scales 1 & 2 of annexure 1 of A-3 and ordering fresh assessment, based on A-1 orders changing the norms of assessment, on the basis of a Internal work study unit without any consultation with unions or any other associations unilaterally, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and is per se illegal, and is violative of all canons of service jurisprudence and is liable to be interfered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of justice. The present proposal to reduce and recover the TRCA already disbursed since October 2009 is manifestly illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (B) It is respectfully submitted that the applicants are GDS who are serving the Department for the last so many years without any promotion. Their long standing request for revision of TRCA was answered by A-3 revision in 5 scales corresponding to the workload by hours. However the same is being restricted by A-1 and A-4 without any rational basis. It is submitted that as can be seen from para 4 (4) and (5), the new assessment norm will take away the benefits of A-3 revision. So in effect the recommendations of the Nataraja Murti commission, will be neutralized, and what is supposed to be an enhancement in TRCA will turn out to be a reduction in TRCA unilaterally based on an unscientific report of a internal work study unit, without consultation with any of the associations or the unions. (C) It is respectfully submitted that as can be seen from A-5, the TRCA of the applicants 2 & 3 have already been revised and enhanced to the replacement scales contained in Annexure 1 of A-3 letter. The replacement of the same, has been based on the present hours of work of the applicants and the replacement scales is given in the scale of Rs.4725/- As can be seen from para 5, if the present proposed norms are applied the points will come down to below 70 from more than 200 and the TRCA will be the minimum in scale 1 contained in A-3. No notice is given to the applicants about the revision and no notice is given about the recovery of excess payment. No justification is shown anywhere regarding the enhancement of the amount from Rs.1000/- to Rs.20,000/- for reckoning 1 point in the point system. The action of the Respondents is thus highly Illegal, Arbitrary and malafide exercise of Power by an authority conferred with power by the rule of law. (D) It is respectfully submitted that the present proposal to revise the assessment of workload on new norms will give rise to many a anomalies, like the BPM drawing less salary than the other GDS working in the same office. As can be seen from para 4, if the revised norms is applied and the workload of the office of the 2nd 3rd applicants is revised, they will be entitled only for the 1st scale as per A-3 letter. In fact both of them is having more than 200 points in the old method and is drawing the maximum in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1600/-. They will be now given only the scale of Rs.2745-4245, where as the GDSMD attached to the office who is in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1375-2125 will be drawing the TRCA in the scale of Rs. 3330-5130. In fact the Respondents in their anxiety to turn the revision of TRCA into a reduction of TRCA has not considered any of these facts and has unilaterally adopted a recommendation of the Internal Work study unit to revise the norms of assessment. It is not understood, under what circumstances the Norms for cash handling is revised and under what criteria this issue has now been compared to in order to enhance the amount of Rs.1000 to Rs.20,000/-. In fact, with the advent of new generation banking reaching even rural areas, the cash handling of the offices has been reduced drastically in the recent past. In such circumstances the present revision to Rs.20,000/- from Rs.1000/- will further decrease the TRCA of the BPM, who has to work the same amount of time as usual. In the said circumstances it is respectfully submitted that the adoption of the new norm of awarding 1 point for cash handling from Rs. 1000/- is highly arbitrary and is to be interfered by this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of Justice. The present action of the Respondents is thus absolutely illegal, arbitrary and violative of all canons of service jurisprudence and is to be interfered by this Honourable Tribunal in the interest of justice. 6. Details of Remedies Exhausted No other statutory remedy. 7. Matters not Previously Filed or Pending Before any Other Court The Applicants further declares that the Applicants have not filed any Application, Writ Petition or Suit, regarding the matter in respect of which this Application is made, before any Court or any other authority or any other Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal nor any such Application, Writ Petition or Suit is pending before any of them. 8. Relief's Sought: - In view of the facts mentioned in Paragraph IV and V above, the Applicants prays for the following reliefs: - (i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-7 and to quash A-1, A-2 and A-4 to the extent it revises and reduces the TRCA as per the New Norms of assessing the workload of a BO with 1 point for every Rs. 20,000/- handled; (ii) To declare that the applicants are entiled for the revision and replacement scales of TRCA as per Annexure 1 of A-3 without any fresh assesment based on new norms of point system; (iii) To direct the Respondents to pay the TRCA at the rates fixed in A-3 based on the existing Workload assessed on the existing Point system; (iv) To issue such other appropriate orders or directions this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case; and (v) To grant the costs of this Original Application. 9. Interim Order if any Prayed for: - Pending final decision of the Original Application the applicant respectfully prays that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation of A-1, A-2 and A-4 and any revision of TRCA pending final decision of the Original Application, in the interest of justice. 10. Not Applicable. 11. Particulars of the Postal Order in Respect of Application Fee:- (1) No. Of the Indian Postal Order: (2) Date of issue of Postal Order : (3) Name of issuing Post Office : Kaloor PO (4) Post Office at which payable : H.P.O. Ernakulam 12. List of Enclosures: - (1) Annexures A-1 to A-7. (2) Vakalath. (3) Envelopes with A/D Cards: 3 Nos. (4) Postal Order for Rs. 50/- verification We, (1) P.U. Muraleedharan , aged 49 years, S/o Late A.K. Sivasankaran Nair, GDSMP, Downhill PO, Manjeri Division, residing at "Geethanjali", Munduparamba PO, Malappuram 676 509. 2. R. Rajendranathan Pillai, aged 52 years, S/o Late Raman Nair, GDSBPM, Plachery PO, Valacode, Pathanamthitta Division, 691 331 residing at " Sree Anjaneyam", Bharanikavu, Punalur PO, Kollam District. 3. Mathew. P.Varghese, aged 33 years, S/o. Gheevarghese Vaidyan, GDSBPM, Vilakkupara BO, Pathanamthitta Division, Pathanamthitta, Residing at " Padinjare Veedu", Alayamon, Anchal, Kollam District, do hereby verify that the contents from para 1 to 12 are true to the best of our personal knowledge and that we have not suppressed any material facts. Ernakulam 28.1.2010 1. P.U. Muraleedharan 2. R. Rajendranathan Pillai 3. Mathew.P. Varghese (Applicants) Shafik. M. Abdulkhadir & R. Sreeraj Counsel for the Applicants. Before The Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench O.A. No. OF 2010 National |
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
