ups_00193 — Penalizing the GDS official for the administrative delay in conducting review of workload and consequent retrospective recovery due to revision of TRCA held impermissible - directed to refund the amount already recovered

Penalizing the GDS official for the administrative delay in conducting review of workload and consequent retrospective recovery due to revision of TRCA held impermissible - directed to refund the amount already recovered — This chunk pertains to an administrative case concerning a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Mail Deliverer, who was drawing TRCA in the scale of ₹ 3660-70-5760 until November 2016. The case revolves around the... — Facts: The Applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Mail Deliverer at Poothampara Branch Post Office, was drawing TRCA in the scale of ₹ 3660-70-5760 until November 2016. Following a periodic review, the Superintendent of Post Offices informed him in 2013 that the periodical review of the BO entitles him to TRCA in the scale of ₹ 2,745-50-4,245 due to decreased workload, with existing TRCA protected for one year up to 1-5-2013. The Applicant was also informed that on completion of one year, a Special Review would be conducted to assess the workload of the Branch Post Master and if the workload after review was found to be at a reduced level the allowance would be reduced to the corresponding TRCA slab. The special review was conducted only on 25-9-2016 and on reassessment of workload with reference to the verified statistics, as no improvement was made and workload remained at below the benchmark, the TRCA was reduced to the slab of ₹ 2745-50-4245 with retrospective effect from 1-5-2014 and a sum of ₹ 59,556 was also ordered to be recovered in instalments. Contending that the retrospective reduction of TRCA and consequent recovery were unjustified, the Applicant filed the present OA. The Applicant contended that the recovery is unjust as the delay in review was entirely due to administrative lapses and not his fault. The Applicant also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq Masih (2015), which prohibits recovery from employees when it is harsh or arbitrary, especially in cases involving low-income earners and where the employee is not at fault and seeks cancellation of order of recovery and refund of deducted amounts. The Respondents contended that TRCA slabs are assessed triennially with respect to a point-system based on workload and accordingly, based upon special review, the TRCA of the Applicant was fixed at ₹ 2,745 - 4,245 with effect from 1-5-2014 resulting in overpayment of ₹ 59,556 from May, 2014 to November, 2016. The Respondents further contended that this earlier TRCA of ₹ 3,660 – 5,760 was also protected for one year during the period of special review. On the question of recovery, the Respondents opposed the Applicant's claim on the ground that the appointment/engagement of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) is in the nature of contract and it is governed by separate set of rules meant for GDS as amended from time to time. It is further contended that Rafiq Masih's case is not applicable to the case of the Applicant as the GDS are a separate cadre outside the Government service. The Respondents further contended that as a result of the reduction in the TRCA, the overpayment of an amount of ₹ 59,556 was to be recovered from the Applicant and the same was directed to be recovered in 30 equal instalments. Moreover, there was no error in calculation and that the Respondents were fully within their rights to recover the excess payments and that the Applicant does not have a right to retain the excess amount paid. In this regard, the Respondents relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 78 of 2010 and also the Judgment, dated 13-9-2004 of Hon'ble Principal Bench in O.A. 283 of 2003 and the Supreme Court's endorsement in O.K. Udayasankar and others v. Union of India, upholding the right of the department to effect recovery of excess payment made.