GDS TRCA based on workload assessment, not actual working hours.

The applicant, C. Manikandan, was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak Packer (GDS PKR) at Vallanad SO A/w Tuticorin HO on September 10, 2013.

His Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) was subsequently revised by the 2nd respondent via Order No.A/113, dated February 13, 2016.

The revised TRCA was fixed at Rs. 2295-45-3695, with no change from his previous TRCA.

The applicant contended that his TRCA should have been higher, specifically Rs.3635-65-5585, as he was performing 5 hours of duty per day.

In response to his representation dated February 20, 2016, the 2nd respondent replied that his working hours were assessed as only 2 hours 15 minutes, determining his TRCA slab.

The applicant then sought information under the RTI Act, and after an appeal to the First Appellate Authority, the 2nd respondent confirmed his working hours as 5 hours.

Despite this, the impugned order maintained the existing TRCA based on the initial calculation of 2 hours 15 minutes.

The respondents argued that TRCA is based on assessed workload, not normal working hours, and cited a review for the period 01.12.2014 to 30.11.2017, which calculated the GDSPKR workload as 2 hours 15 minutes.

Whether the Impugned Order No.A/113, dated 13.02.2016, passed by the Second Respondent was valid, or if the respondents should be directed to grant the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) as per the applicant's actual working hours of 5 hours per day from the date of initial appointment at Vallanadu Post office.

Whether the applicant's TRCA should be calculated as per the Revised Scheme of TRCA, i.e., Rs.3635-65-5585, for the period from 10.09.2013 instead of Rs.2295-45-3695, with all consequential benefits.

The court primarily applied the principles governing the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) for Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS).

Specifically, the allowance is fixed based on the workload of a particular post, not necessarily the office work hour.

The Justice Talwar Committee recommended TRCA replacing the basic monthly allowance system.

The revision of wage structure for GDS, as per Postal Directorate New Delhi Memo No. 6-1/2009-PE .II dated 09.10.2009, established TRCA slabs corresponding to specific workloads.

The court also relied on its earlier decision in OA 410/2014, D.Jayapaul v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, which held that TRCA is granted based on the assessment of workload of the GDS.

Additionally, the Tribunal referenced its decision in OA 1175/2016, which dismissed a similar claim by a GDS employee, emphasizing that remuneration is determined by separate rules based on workload assessment.

The court analyzed the applicant's claim for enhanced TRCA based on his asserted 5 hours of daily duty.

The respondents contended that TRCA is fixed based on the assessed workload of a particular post, not the general working hours.

This was supported by the Postal Directorate's instructions and the triennial review methodology.

The review for Vallanad SO from 01.12.2014 to 30.11.2017 calculated the GDSPKR workload as 2 hours 15 minutes, thus justifying the TRCA fixed at Rs.2295-45-3695.

The court noted that while normal working hours for a GDS are up to 5 hours, the determinant for TRCA is the actual assessed workload.

The Tribunal explicitly followed its previous rulings in D.Jayapaul (OA 410/2014) and a similar case in OA 1175/2016, which affirmed that the TRCA fixation was based on workload assessment and departmental policy uniformly applied without discrimination.

The applicant's argument that his 'working hours' were 5 hours, as acknowledged through an RTI response, did not override the departmental methodology of calculating TRCA based on 'workload'.

The court concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a valid claim beyond the defined hours for a specific quantum of task.

The court found no infirmity in the respondents' fixation of the applicant's TRCA to Rs.2295-45-3695, as it was based on the assessed workload of 2 hours 15 minutes, consistent with established rules and prior Tribunal judgments.

The applicant's claim for a higher TRCA based on 5 actual working hours was rejected as TRCA is tied to assessed workload, not general working hours.

No costs were awarded.