Belated challenge to workload-based TRCA reduction is barred by statutory limitation and lacks merit.

The applicants, employed as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) in various capacities (Mail Deliverers/Carriers) under the Guna Division, challenged a common order dated 19.05.2003.

This order reduced their Time Rated Continuity Allowance (TRCA) based on an evaluation of reduced workload.

For instance, one applicant's TRCA scale was lowered from Rs. 1545-25-2020 to Rs. 1375-25-2125, resulting in a reduction of basic pay from Rs. 1670 to Rs. 1375 without pay protection.

The applicants contended that the Department of Post letter dated 11.10.2004 mandated pay protection in such cases.

They further alleged anomalies in the implementation of the Natrajmurthy Committee recommendations (w.e.f. 01.01.2006), which placed them in lower revised scales than entitled.

The applicants filed representations in 2016 before approaching the Tribunal.

1. Whether the Original Applications are barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given that the cause of action arose in 2003.

2. Whether the reduction of TRCA based on workload assessment and the subsequent fixation in revised scales was legally sustainable.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates that an application must be filed within one year from the cause of action (or 18 months if a representation is pending), unless sufficient cause for delay is shown.

Supreme Court precedent D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India & Ors. (2018) 16 SCC 721, which held that Tribunals cannot ignore the mandate of Section 21 and must address limitation before admitting a case.

Principle from a previous Bench decision in Suresh Chandra Sharma v. UOI (OA No. 532/2006), which established that TRCA can be refixed based on actual workload and periodical reviews.

The Tribunal observed that the primary grievance regarding the reduction of TRCA originated from an order passed in 2003.

The applicants remained silent for over thirteen years before filing representations and approaching the Tribunal in 2016.

Applying Section 21 of the Act and the D.C.S. Negi ruling, the Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for this decade-long delay.

On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had recalculated the TRCA based on revised workload formulas (such as changing "foot beat" to "cycle beat"), which is a permissible administrative action.

The Tribunal referred to a similar dismissed case (OA No. 532/2006), noting that directions from 2004 were guidelines for refixation rather than an absolute bar against reduction when workload decreases.

It held that the claims were stale and the workload-based revision of TRCA was consistent with departmental guidelines and previous judicial findings.

No order as to costs was made, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.