ups_00276 — The impugned order, dated 27-6-2018 which is about workload of MD is for 1 hour 53 minutes, is passed without allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing the Applicant as per Order, dated 25-1-2018 (A/5), is not sustainable. Hence, that order is quashed. Respondents have to refund the amount, if any recovered from the Applicant towards recovery of reported excess payment

UPS

The impugned order, dated 27-6-2018 which is about workload of MD is for 1 hour 53 minutes, is passed without allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing the Applicant as per Order, dated 25-1-2018 (A/5), is not sustainable. Hence, that order is quashed. Respondents have to refund the amount, if any recovered from the Applicant towards recovery of reported excess payment — This chunk is about an order (O.A. No. 465 of 2018) that was passed without allowing a reasonable opportunity to hear the applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak in the Postal Department, regarding his workloa... — Facts: Applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Mail Carrier / Mail Distributor in Postal Department, joined the service on 3-1-2000. Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) per month with effect from 1-1-2006 was fixed at the rate of ₹ 4,445. Based on workload of 3 hours 45 minutes, the TRCA was fixed, states the Applicant in the OA. DG Posts issued a circular revising TRCA as ₹ 4,230 per month without giving any notice to the Applicant. Applicant's representation against that fixation at lower rates was not replied. Applicant's representation against that was disposed of by the department based on his filing O.A. No. 242 of 2013 to consider and dispose of the representation. The representation filed as directed by Tribunal was rejected. That rejection order was challenged by Applicant by filing another O.A. No. 504 of 2013. Tribunal quashed the rejection order of O.A. No. 504 of 2013 and directed the Respondents to take a decision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing the Applicant. The said operative portion of the Tribunal is reproduced. Even though the Respondents acted as directed by Tribunal, no reason for recovery is given and passed impugned order, dated 27-6-2018 (A/5) confirming the decision to recover excess amount of ₹ 12,116 paid to the Applicant towards higher TRCA from 1-1-2006 to 30-6-2009. Hence Applicant filed this OA for a direction to the Respondents to fix his salary from February, 2013 as ₹ 4,445 with arrears and refund the deducted amount recovered from the Applicant. Respondents filed their reply. On reading the submission of both sides, the issues to be decided in this OA are:
(i) whether the impugned order, dated 27-6-2018 passed after issuing the show-cause notice to the Applicant as per order, dated 25-1-2008 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 504 of 2013.
(ii) whether the order, dated 3-4-2018 (A/8 of the counter) of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 764 of 2015 is applicable in this case. The order, dated 25-1-2018 (A/1), it is seen by the Tribunal that the recovery of the amount in question has been ordered without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Applicant. When the Applicant replied that in absence of reasons, he is not able to reply the show-cause notice, no action was taken by Respondents to inform the reasons for recovery as requested by the Applicant. Without informing the reason for reduction of the TRCA retrospectively from 1-1-2006 on the basis of reduced workload as on 1-1-2006, it cannot be said that the Applicant was allowed a reasonable opportunity to furnish his submissions before the Competent Authority regarding his reduced workload and / on reduction of TRCA retrospectively from 1-1-2006 as directed by Tribunal in order, dated 25-1-2018 (A/1). Regarding compliance of principle of natural justice, principle laid down in the case of Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others [ 2003 (4) SEC 557 ] which is cited in the OA is brought out. As per that judgment, it is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against Applicant. This is one of an important principle natural justice. Show-cause notice without details based on which the action is proposed to be taken, the show-cause notice becomes an empty formality. The reduced workload done behind the back of the Applicant has not been specifically contradicted in the counter. Counter also did not disclose the justifications for assessing the workload to be 2 hour 54 minutes. Based on the above discussion, Respondents failed to extend a reasonable opportunity to the Applicant to place his point of view on reduced workload and TRCA before taking the decision of recovery of the amount in question. Thus Respondents failed to adhere to the order, dated 25-1-2008 (A/1) passed in O.A. No. 504 of 2013. Hence this issue noticed in Para. 8 of this order is therefore, answered in negative and against Respondents. A regards issue No.
(ii) of Para. 8 of the judgment, it is seen that there was no direction of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 764 of 2015 (Pradip Kumar Mahopatra v. Union of India and others) to issue show-cause notice regarding recovery before taking a decision. But in this case, there was specific direction of the Tribunal, dated 25-1-2018 (A/1 of the OA) which was not challenged by Respondents. Hence, this O.A. No. is different from O.A. No. 764 of 2015. The issue No
(ii) in this judgment (Para. 8) is accordingly answered in negative and against Respondents. In the issue of show-cause notice as per the direction of Tribunal, it was only mechanical without details based on which the workload was assessed by R-4, the Inspector Posts, to be less so as to allow reasonable opportunity of hearing Applicant before taking any decision in the matter. The judgment in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh [ AIR 2016 SC 3523 ], cited by Respondents will not be helpful since in that case, the recovery was due to excess payment made as per earlier revised pay scale which is not the case of the affected employee herein. Applicant herein was neither informed about the reason for recovery and the principle of natural justice was neither raised nor considered in the cited case. Hence, Jagdev Singh case (supra) will not be helpful for the Respondents in this case.

UPS

The impugned order, dated 27-6-2018 which is about workload of MD is for 1 hour 53 minutes, is passed without allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing the Applicant as per Order, dated 25-1-2018 (A/5), is not sustainable. Hence, that order is quashed. Respondents have to refund the amount, if any recovered from the Applicant towards recovery of reported excess payment — This chunk is about an order (O.A. No. 465 of 2018) that was passed without allowing a reasonable opportunity to hear the applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak in the Postal Department, regarding his workloa... — Facts: Applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Mail Carrier / Mail Distributor in Postal Department, joined the service on 3-1-2000. Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) per month with effect from 1-1-2006 was fixed at the rate of ₹ 4,445. Based on workload of 3 hours 45 minutes, the TRCA was fixed, states the Applicant in the OA. DG Posts issued a circular revising TRCA as ₹ 4,230 per month without giving any notice to the Applicant. Applicant's representation against that fixation at lower rates was not replied. Applicant's representation against that was disposed of by the department based on his filing O.A. No. 242 of 2013 to consider and dispose of the representation. The representation filed as directed by Tribunal was rejected. That rejection order was challenged by Applicant by filing another O.A. No. 504 of 2013. Tribunal quashed the rejection order of O.A. No. 504 of 2013 and directed the Respondents to take a decision afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing the Applicant. The said operative portion of the Tribunal is reproduced. Even though the Respondents acted as directed by Tribunal, no reason for recovery is given and passed impugned order, dated 27-6-2018 (A/5) confirming the decision to recover excess amount of ₹ 12,116 paid to the Applicant towards higher TRCA from 1-1-2006 to 30-6-2009. Hence Applicant filed this OA for a direction to the Respondents to fix his salary from February, 2013 as ₹ 4,445 with arrears and refund the deducted amount recovered from the Applicant. Respondents filed their reply. On reading the submission of both sides, the issues to be decided in this OA are:
(i) whether the impugned order, dated 27-6-2018 passed after issuing the show-cause notice to the Applicant as per order, dated 25-1-2008 of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 504 of 2013.
(ii) whether the order, dated 3-4-2018 (A/8 of the counter) of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 764 of 2015 is applicable in this case. The order, dated 25-1-2018 (A/1), it is seen by the Tribunal that the recovery of the amount in question has been ordered without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Applicant. When the Applicant replied that in absence of reasons, he is not able to reply the show-cause notice, no action was taken by Respondents to inform the reasons for recovery as requested by the Applicant. Without informing the reason for reduction of the TRCA retrospectively from 1-1-2006 on the basis of reduced workload as on 1-1-2006, it cannot be said that the Applicant was allowed a reasonable opportunity to furnish his submissions before the Competent Authority regarding his reduced workload and / on reduction of TRCA retrospectively from 1-1-2006 as directed by Tribunal in order, dated 25-1-2018 (A/1). Regarding compliance of principle of natural justice, principle laid down in the case of Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others [ 2003 (4) SEC 557 ] which is cited in the OA is brought out. As per that judgment, it is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against Applicant. This is one of an important principle natural justice. Show-cause notice without details based on which the action is proposed to be taken, the show-cause notice becomes an empty formality. The reduced workload done behind the back of the Applicant has not been specifically contradicted in the counter. Counter also did not disclose the justifications for assessing the workload to be 2 hour 54 minutes. Based on the above discussion, Respondents failed to extend a reasonable opportunity to the Applicant to place his point of view on reduced workload and TRCA before taking the decision of recovery of the amount in question. Thus Respondents failed to adhere to the order, dated 25-1-2008 (A/1) passed in O.A. No. 504 of 2013. Hence this issue noticed in Para. 8 of this order is therefore, answered in negative and against Respondents. A regards issue No.
(ii) of Para. 8 of the judgment, it is seen that there was no direction of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 764 of 2015 (Pradip Kumar Mahopatra v. Union of India and others) to issue show-cause notice regarding recovery before taking a decision. But in this case, there was specific direction of the Tribunal, dated 25-1-2018 (A/1 of the OA) which was not challenged by Respondents. Hence, this O.A. No. is different from O.A. No. 764 of 2015. The issue No
(ii) in this judgment (Para. 8) is accordingly answered in negative and against Respondents. In the issue of show-cause notice as per the direction of Tribunal, it was only mechanical without details based on which the workload was assessed by R-4, the Inspector Posts, to be less so as to allow reasonable opportunity of hearing Applicant before taking any decision in the matter. The judgment in the case of High Court of Punjab and Haryana v. Jagdev Singh [ AIR 2016 SC 3523 ], cited by Respondents will not be helpful since in that case, the recovery was due to excess payment made as per earlier revised pay scale which is not the case of the affected employee herein. Applicant herein was neither informed about the reason for recovery and the principle of natural justice was neither raised nor considered in the cited case. Hence, Jagdev Singh case (supra) will not be helpful for the Respondents in this case.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text