SHEODHYAN SINGH vs Postal

-1- OA/050/00180/2020


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA

O.A. 050/00180/2020


Reserved on: 01.10.2026
Pronounced on: 15.10.2026


Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)


In the matter of:
Sheodhyan Singh,
S/o Late Ram Brich Singh, resident of Village & PO-
Shahjahanpur via Nagarnausa, District- Nalanda-
801305.


Patna
Bench
………….Applicant


VS.
1. The Union of India, through the Secretary cum DG,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001.
2. The Chief PMG, Bihar Circle, Patna- 800001.
3. The Postmaster General, Bhagalpur Region, Patna-
800001.

4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalanda Division,
Bihar Sharif- 800305.

........ Respondents


For The Applicant(s): Mr. S. K. Tiwary, Counsel
For The Respondent(s): Mr. T. N. Thakur, Sr. CGSC




Digitally signed
SURYARO
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI

-2- OA/050/00180/2020


O R D E R
[Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)]
The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19
of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following
relief:
“ 8.1 The Hon’ble Court may be directed to the respondent
authority to pay amount of Group Insurance, Severance Allowance &
Gratuity as per OM dated 17.06.2018 (Annexure A/2) along with
admissible interest with cost thereupon.
8.2 Any other relief/reliefs, the applicant is entitled and Your
Lordhips may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”
Patna
Bench

2. The applicant has instituted the present Original Application
under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985,
seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the admissible
amounts towards Group Insurance, severance allowance and
gratuity in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated
27.06.2018, along with admissible interest and costs.
2.1 The applicant superannuated from service with effect from
01.01.2018 while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster
(GDSBPM), Shahjahanpur Branch Office, under Nalanda Postal
Division. Upon retirement, he was initially paid Rs. 60,000/-
towards ex-gratia gratuity and Rs. 48,000/- towards severance
allowance, as reflected in the departmental memorandum dated
16.11.2018.

Digitally signed
SURYARO
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI

-3- OA/050/00180/2020

2.2 The applicant contends that the aforesaid payments did not
reflect his entitlement under the Office Memorandum dated
27.06.2018. According to him, he was entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/-
towards gratuity and Rs. 1,40,000/- towards severance allowance.
He also alleged non-payment of the Group Insurance amount and
submitted a representation dated 18.03.2019 before the Chief
Postmaster General, Bihar Circle.
2.3 The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A.
No. 762/2019. By order dated 09.08.2019, the Tribunal directed the
Patna
Bench
respondents to consider his representation in accordance with the
applicable terms and policy and to pass an appropriate order
within the stipulated period.
2.4 The applicant thereafter instituted the present proceedings,
alleging that the respondents had not granted his admissible
benefits in full and had paid only Rs. 5,000/- additionally towards
severance allowance.
3. The respondents have contested the claim. They submit that,
apart from the initial payments, the applicant was paid a further
sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards the differential amount of gratuity
and Rs. 5,000/- towards the differential amount of severance
allowance, vide departmental memoranda dated 08.11.2019. They
have further placed on record evidence showing credit of Rs.
12,053/- towards Group Insurance in the applicant’s bank account
on 07.11.2019. According to the respondents, the payments were
Digitally signed
SURYARO
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI

-4- OA/050/00180/2020

sanctioned and made in accordance with the applicable
departmental instructions, and no further amount remains
payable.
4. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant to dispute the
specific assertions regarding the subsequent payments, the credit
of the Group Insurance amount or the calculations furnished by
the respondents. The learned counsels for both parties have been
heard, and the pleadings and documents available on record have
been considered. Thereafter, I have arrived at the following
Patna
Bench
conclusion:
4.1 Points for determination:
The principal question requiring determination is whether,
in view of the subsequent payments evidenced by the respondents,
any further amount remains due to the applicant under the claims
raised in the present Original Application.
This claim is required to be examined separately under the
three heads of benefit.

A. Gratuity and severance allowance
The record, as presented by the parties, establishes that the
applicant initially received Rs. 60,000/- towards ex-gratia gratuity
and Rs. 48,000/- towards severance allowance. The respondents
have subsequently produced departmental records showing
payment of a further Rs. 90,000/- towards gratuity and Rs. 5,000/-
towards severance allowance.
Digitally signed
SURYARO
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI

-5- OA/050/00180/2020

The material placed on record thus indicates aggregate
payments of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards gratuity and Rs. 53,000/-
towards severance allowance. The applicant’s claim for severance
allowance, however, cannot be decided merely by comparing the
aggregate payment with the figure of Rs. 1,40,000/- asserted in the
Original Application. The applicable departmental instructions,
their effective date, the applicant’s eligibility thereunder and the
calculation adopted by the competent authority must govern the
determination.
Patna
Bench
The respondents have stated that the differential payments
were sanctioned in accordance with the applicable departmental
policy, referring to the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.2019 and
the relevant sanction and calculation records. The applicant has
not filed a rejoinder disputing the calculations furnished by the
respondents or identified any specific computational error in the
amount sanctioned and paid.
The absence of a rejoinder does not, by itself, establish the
correctness of every assertion made in the written statement.
Nevertheless, where the respondents have produced documentary
material supporting the payments and the applicant has not
identified any specific deficiency in those payments, the material
presently available does not furnish a sufficient basis for any
further adjudication in this regard.
Digitally signed
SURYARO
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI

-6- OA/050/00180/2020

It is, however, necessary to distinguish between the fact of
payment and the correctness of the underlying entitlement. A
payment record may establish that a sum has been credited, but it
does not, by itself, establish that the amount represents the full
entitlement under the governing instructions. In the present case,
no specific provision or calculation error has been demonstrated
by the applicant, on the pleadings and material described before
this Tribunal, which would justify a further monetary direction.
B. Group Insurance
Patna
Bench
The applicant’s allegation of non-payment of Group
Insurance is met by the respondents’ documentary assertion that
Rs. 12,053/- was credited to his bank account on 07.11.2019. The
relevant bank-credit record has been produced as Annexure R/5 to
the written statement.
In the absence of any specific challenge to the authenticity of
that record or any material showing that the amount was not
received, the allegation of complete non-payment of Group
Insurance cannot be sustained. The applicant has also not
established, on the material described in the pleadings, that any
further amount under this head remains unpaid.
C. Effect of the earlier order
The order dated 09.08.2019 in O.A. No. 762/2019 required the
respondents to consider the applicant’s representation in
accordance with the applicable terms and policy and to pass an
Digitally signed
SURYARO
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI

-7- OA/050/00180/2020

appropriate order. The earlier direction did not, as reproduced in
the present pleadings, itself adjudicate an unconditional
entitlement to the particular amounts now claimed.
4.2 The question in the present Original Application is,
therefore, whether the respondents’ subsequent action discloses
any surviving deficiency warranting intervention of this Tribunal.
The departmental records relied upon by the respondents indicate
that the differential amounts were sanctioned and paid and that
the Group Insurance amount was also credited to the applicant’s
Patna
Bench
account. No specific and substantiated shortfall has been
established on the material presently before the Tribunal.
4.3 The Tribunal is conscious that retiral benefits, once found
admissible under the governing rules or instructions, must be paid
in accordance with those provisions. At the same time, a further
payment cannot be directed merely on the basis of an asserted
figure without establishing that the applicable instructions confer
the claimed entitlement and that the amount already paid falls
short of it.
5. In view of the above discussion and analysis this Tribunal
finds no sufficient ground to direct a further payment towards
gratuity, severance allowance or Group Insurance. The applicant
has not established an outstanding monetary liability on the part of
the respondents warranting the relief sought.
Digitally signed
SURYARO
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI

-8- OA/050/00180/2020

6. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the
Original Application is dismissed. The prayer for interest, being
consequential upon the claim for further payment which has not
been established, is also declined.
7. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
Sd/-
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra)
Administrative Member
Srk



Patna
Bench

Digitally signed
SURYARO
by SURYAROOP
KABI
OP KABI