ups_00274 — Applicant has sought direction to grant TRCA as he was performing double duty and working as GDSMD and also GDSMC
Original Rule Text
Applicant has sought direction to grant TRCA as he was performing double duty and working as GDSMD and also GDSMC — The given chunk is a part of an Order Application (OA No. 409 of 2019) regarding the issue of granting TRCA (Traveling Allowance Cost) to an applicant who was performing double duty as GDSMD (Mail De... — Facts: The Applicant while functioning as GDSMC (mail carrier) for duration of 1 hour and 28 minutes per day had been assigned with effect from 1-6-2006 additional work of GDS (Mail Deliverer) which accounts for 4 hours and 5 minutes. Despite the fact that as per Order, dated 6-7-1998 provision exists in respect of a GDS performing dual functions to designate as both i.e. GDSMD cum GDSMC in his case whereas, his designation remained as GDSMC and TRCA was also worked out for the lower hours of work and thus his TRCA was only 3,590 with effect from 1-6-2006 which would have certainly been much more had the function for larger duration is taken into account. Thus, his prayer is for a direction to the Respondents to fix the TRCA of the Applicant in the scale of ₹ 4,220 - 75 - 6,470 from 1-6-2006 and also for re-designation of the posts he was holding as GDSMD cum GDSMC. Per Respondents, the TRCA of the Applicant was calculated as per his original post at ₹ 3,570. Since after verification it was found that workload of Applicant in his original post was less the TRCA was re-fixed and overpayment was recovered from him. As regards re-designation, Respondents contended that after implementation of Kamlesh Chandra Committee report dated 25-6-2018, such a re-designation has become insignificant. Facts as to the number of hours of working by the Applicant are not in dispute. The Tribunal is at a loss to understand as to why the Respondents have not processed the case of the Applicant for re-designating the designation as GDSMD cum MC with effect from 1-6-2006. That such a re-designation is academic in view of Kamlesh Chandra Report is unacceptable as the report pertains to 2018, whereas the case of the Applicant dates back to 2006.