A GDS employee cannot claim Group D salary for duties asserted unless formally engaged in a sanctioned Group D position.

ORDER

Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.

2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, praying for the following relief(s):-

“(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 (ANNEXURE A-1) passed by the respondent No-2 with all the consequential benefits

(b)- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondents to pay the differences of salary to the applicant of the posts of Transit Mail Peon (TMP Jhinjhak Rasulabad Runner line, Chaukidar ( Group D) Jhinjhak, Transit mail Peon Jhinjhak-Mangalpur & Town Post ManJhinjhak on which applicant performed the duty wef 27.06.1991 το 03.02.2017 independently total period 25 years 7 months 16 days with all other consequential benefit like differences of bonus.

(c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondents to observe in group D cadre & treated the officiating service as regular in Group D/MTS

(d) Issue any order/direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(e) Award the cost of petition to the applicant..”

3. The applicant was initially recruited as an Extra Departmental Agent (EDA) and was subsequently appointed to the Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS) cadre at Jhinjhak, assuming charge on 27.06.1991. Respondent No. 4 directed the applicant to perform officiating duties of Group ‘D’/Mail Carrier (Runner on the Jhinjhak–Rasulabad mail line). The applicant performed these duties from 27.06.1991 to 31.01.2009. During this period, the respondents paid only the EDA Allowance/Time-Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) applicable to the EDA/GDS cadre, instead of the officiating pay of the Group ‘D’/MTS cadre. The applicant was, therefore, entitled to the salary difference under FR-49. On 28.01.2009, Respondent No. 4 issued Order No. A/Ahibaran Singh/09 directing the applicant to take charge as Chaukidar of Jhinjhak Post Office. The applicant performed officiating duties as Chaukidar from 31.01.2009 up to 24.09.2016, working 15 hours daily, but was not paid officiating salary. Thereafter, pursuant to telephonic directions of the respondents, the applicant performed officiating duty of Group ‘D’ Mail Runner from 24.09.2016 to 24.12.2016. Subsequently, the applicant served on the mail runner line Jhinjhak–Mangalpur from 24.12.2016 to 20.01.2017 and as Village Postman (Departmental) Jhinjhak–Kanpur (Dehat) from 20.01.2017 to 23.01.2017. In all instances, he was paid only GDS TRCA instead of the minimum pay scale for Group ‘D’/MTS or Postman. The applicant submitted a representation dated 23.01.2017 requesting payment of the officiating pay differences under FR-49 and the Directorate of Posts, New Delhi circular dated 12.04.1991. Respondent No. 4 sought explanations from the applicant on 08.03.2017 regarding his representation to higher authorities. In response to an RTI application, Respondent No. 3, in reply dated 13.04.2017, confirmed that the Jhinjhak–Rasulabad Mail Runner line was departmental, the post of Chaukidar of Jhinjhak had been abolished, and the Mangalpur–Jhinjhak Mail Runner line was managed by the GDS cadre. The applicant also filed a review petition dated 17.07.2017 before Respondent No. 4 against Respondent No. 2’s impugned order dated 10.02.2017.

4. The applicant has relied upon the following judicial precedents:

(i) CAT judgment in Ramesh Prasad Srivastava vs. UoI & Others (OA No. 573/2015, dated 14.07.2016);

(ii) Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad judgment in Bittan Devi vs. UoI & Others (W.P. No. 38446/1998, dated