Burden of proof lies with applicant to prove engagement and unpaid wages.

The applicant no.1, Dayanand Kumar Sinha, was engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak (BPM) at Charuipar BO since 24.05.1995

In 2022, he was directed to take charge of a newly opened branch at Muzaffara BO and asked to arrange a substitute for his previous post at Charuipar BO

Applicant no.2, Alka Mani (daughter of applicant no.1), was nominated as the substitute Gramin Dak Sevak (BPM) at Charuipar BO

The Postal Department issued a notification dated 01.02.2022, naming applicant no.2 as the substitute

Applicant no.2 worked from 01.02.2022 to 31.08.2022 and was paid Time-Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) for this period

Subsequently, after another substitute (Gobind Kumar) worked for 89 days from 01.05.2022

applicant no.2 was again appointed as substitute Gramin Dak Sevak, BPM at Charuipar BO via a notification dated 01.07.2022, taking charge from 04.07.2022

The notification dated 01.07.2022 did not specify the period of engagement for applicant no.2, unlike previous notifications which mentioned 89 days

Applicant no.1 eventually took charge from applicant no.2 on 22.05.2024

The applicants' main grievance is the non-payment of TRCA to applicant no.2 for the period from 01.09.2022 to 21.05.2024

The respondents contended that substitute arrangements were only issued for a maximum of 89 days at a time and that applicant no.2 had been paid for the active period of her approved substitution

Whether applicant no.2 is entitled to Time-Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) for the period from 01.09.2022 to 21.05.2024 for allegedly working as a substitute Gramin Dak Sevak (BPM) at Charuipar BO

The court primarily applied the principle that an applicant bears the burden of proof to establish their claim

Specifically, for claims of wages or allowance, the applicant must provide proof of engagement and work performed during the disputed period

The court also noted the respondents' contention that substitute arrangements for Gramin Dak Sevaks are generally limited to a maximum of 89 days and require due notification

The court analyzed the applicants' claim for TRCA for applicant no.2 for the period from 01.09.2022 to 21.05.2024

It acknowledged that applicant no.2 had performed duties and received TRCA for an earlier period (01.02.2022 to 31.08.2022)

However, the crucial aspect was the lack of any official notification or order appointing or extending applicant no.2's substitute arrangement for the claimed period

The notification dated 01.07.2022, under which applicant no.2 took charge, did not specify an engagement period

The applicants admitted that substitute arrangements for more than 90 days are generally not done

The respondents explicitly denied any substitute arrangement for applicant no.2 for the period in question, stating that official substitutions were limited to 89 days and that combined duty allowance was paid for managing vacant posts

The court noted that directives from the Chief Post Master General and Ministry of Communication cited by the applicants were general in nature and did not specifically mention the applicants

Despite requests from the department to provide proof of engagement for the disputed period, the applicants failed to submit any such substitute arrangement memo

Therefore, the court found the applicants did not discharge their burden of proving applicant no.2's engagement for the claimed period

Due to the absence of any proof on record, such as a notification, for applicant no.2 being entrusted to perform duties as a substitute Gramin Dak Sevak for the period of 01.09.2022 to 21.05.2024, no relief as claimed could be granted

Accordingly, the O.A. was dismissed