ups_00202 — Reduction of TRCA on the ground of non-achievement of target is not permissible and Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Bhubaneswar Division is directed to pass an appropriate Order, if the Applicant is entitled for higher TRCA with arrears to be paid to him

Reduction of TRCA on the ground of non-achievement of target is not permissible and Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Bhubaneswar Division is directed to pass an appropriate Order, if the Applicant is entitled for higher TRCA with arrears to be paid to him — This chunk pertains to a case OA No. 104/2014, involving an applicant who was initially appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) but subsequently deployed as Mail Deliverer and GDS Branch Postmaster due t... — Facts: Applicant who was initially appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak, Stamp Vendor (GDSSV) on 8-8-1994 was declared surplus after abolition of GDSSV. He was deployed as Mail Deliverer in Naharkanta Post Office by Order, dated 17-2-2011 (A/1). Then he was deployed as GDS Branch Postmaster at Naharkanta PO at his risk vide Order, dated 31-3-2011 (A/2). Applicant submitted a representation for posting there permanently which did not fetch any actions. Hence he filed O.A. No. 353/2012 which was disposed of by the Tribunal vide Order, dated 24-1-2020. In this OA, the grievance of Applicant is that, TRCA was reduced by Respondents without assigning any reason for which he filed O.A. No. 283/13 and then O.A. No. 734/13 which were disposed with the direction to consider his representation in this regard. Respondents accordingly passed Order, dated 30-12-2013 (A/11) rejecting Applicant's representation for which the present OA is filed. Applicant stated that the reason furnished in the impugned Order (A/11) for rejection of the representation is non-achievement of the target which is not a permissible ground for reduction of TRCA as per rules. It is also stated that he is harassed by Respondents in spite of the suffering from different ailments but performing his duties satisfactorily. Respondents opposed the submission of the Applicant as pointed out in Para. 4 of the counter. That paragraph is reproduced. In that paragraph, it is stated that “Applicant's salary has been reduced and has been deducted.” Recovery of some amount is prohibited by Tribunal and the representation of the Applicant is to be disposed of by a Speaking Order. On that, the Impugned Order, dated 30-12-2013 (A/11) has been passed by R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Bhubaneswar Division. No order of recovery issued in this case has been furnished in the impugned Order or in the pleadings of the Respondents. Order, dated 30-12-2013 (A/11) is reproduced for clarity. R-3 in the impugned Order, has stated that the Applicant was entitled for TRCA for the post he holds without explaining the reason for payment of minimum TRCA to the Applicant as GDS BPM of Mancheswar PO. From the Order, dated 31-3-2011 (A/2) by which the Applicant was deployed to work as GDS BPM Mancheswar PO, it appears that as per Order, at A/2, the Applicant is entitled to get his existing TRCA and not the TRCA applicable for the post of GDS BPM. From the reasoning of A/2 Order, the Applicant's TRCA was correctly fixed by the Competent Authority as per rules. No order has been issued for recovery of TRCA paid before deducting the excess amount paid. Recovery was done behind the Applicant's back and the contention in Para. 4.10 of the OA has not been contradicted by Respondents enclosing the copy of the Order, passed by Competent Authority about the recovery being made from Applicant's TRCA. Such action violates the principles of natural justice and is not legally sustainable.