A disciplinary penalty does not defer 7th CPC TRCA revision or increments.

The applicant, a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, challenged the respondent’s order dated 17 August 2019 concerning her Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA).

Following a 2013 workload review recording 68.77 points, her TRCA was refixed in the lower slab of ₹2,745–4,245 from 1 October 2014, with protection for one year.

A 2015 penalty reduced her TRCA by one stage, but the respondent later asserted that she had continued to receive higher TRCA and sought recovery of alleged excess payments.

In 2023, the respondent issued a corrigendum revising the penalty order.

The applicant argued that her 2017 workload review showed 78.83 points, that her pay should be revised under the Seventh Central Pay Commission (CPC), and that recovery was impermissible.

She had earlier obtained an order directing the respondent to decide her representations; the resulting rejection was the order challenged in this OA.

1. Whether the applicant’s TRCA had to be revised under the Seventh CPC during the currency of the penalty, including the treatment of increments.

2. Whether the respondent could recover alleged excess TRCA from the applicant, and whether amounts already recovered had to be refunded.

The Tribunal referred to the Department of Posts’ letter dated 9 October 2009, which prescribes TRCA slabs according to workload points.

It held that the applicant was entitled to Seventh CPC TRCA revision from 1 January 2016 and relied on the Department of Posts’ implementation of the Kamlesh Chandra Committee recommendations.

It also applied the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 18 June 2019, under which a penalty reducing pay by one stage is to be reflected by fixing pay at the next upper vertical cell in the same level; the Tribunal treated increments during the penalty period as notional where the penalty order permitted increments.

The Tribunal additionally considered the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2015) 4 SCC 334, concerning recovery of excess payments from employees.

The OA was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s TRCA should have been revised under the Seventh CPC from 1 January 2016, rather than leaving the lower pre-revised slab in place until the penalty expired.

Because the penalty order allowed her to earn increments during the reduction period, the respondent should have notionally applied those increments and reflected the one-stage reduction in the revised TRCA structure.

The 2023 corrigendum, issued years after the original penalty order, did not account for the Seventh CPC revision.

The respondent’s argument that the applicant had reached the maximum of the lower slab and therefore could receive no increment did not answer her entitlement under the revised structure.

On that basis, the Tribunal found the proposed recovery untenable and also noted the applicant’s reliance on Rafiq Masih.

It made the interim order against recovery absolute and directed refund of any amount already recovered within three weeks; delayed refund would carry interest at 6% until payment.

The OA was disposed of without an order as to costs.