Facts
The applicant was appointed as an Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (now GDS BPM) in 1990 and received awards for her performance in 2007 and 2017
Source reference: p. 2She sought placement in the highest slab of Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA)—specifically ₹14,500-35,480—claiming her workload points exceeded 112.5 based on her duty hours and the number of villages served
Source reference: p. 2The respondents, following a workload assessment for the year 2016-17, calculated her workload at 81.45 points and placed her in the ₹12,000-29,380 slab
Source reference: p. 2-3The applicant's representations and legal notices were rejected by the Department of Posts, leading to the current Original Application
Source reference: p. 3Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to the highest slab of Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) based on the actual workload assessment of her Branch Post Office
Source reference: p. 2, 4Law Applied
The principles of the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) system for Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS), which dictates that wages are strictly based on assessed workload points.
Source reference: p. 3This system was implemented following the recommendations of the R. S. Nataraja Murti Committee (2009) and subsequently revised per the Kamlesh Chandra Committee recommendations (2018)
Source reference: p. 3Under these norms, specific TRCA slabs are fixed corresponding to assessed workload points, such as the requirement of exceeding 112.5 points for the highest slab
Source reference: p. 2, 4Reasoning
The Tribunal examined the respondents' workload assessment (Annexure R/1), which calculated the applicant’s workload at 81.45 points based on figures from 2016-17
Source reference: p. 4It noted that under this assessment, the applicant was actually drawing a higher TRCA than justified by her workload points
Source reference: p. 4The court found that the applicant failed to provide any empirical evidence, data, or quantification to support her claim that her workload exceeded the 112.5-point threshold
Source reference: p. 5While the applicant relied on the receipt of the Meghdoot Award to suggest high workload, the Tribunal held that such awards do not substitute for technical workload quantification required for TRCA fixation
Source reference: p. 5The Tribunal characterized the applicant's arguments as "rambling and inconclusive," noting that she had not effectively challenged the official workload reports with specific quantitative data
Source reference: p. 5-6Holding
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s claim lacked merit and substance as it was not supported by any report or analysis
The Tribunal held that the applicant was already receiving TRCA higher than justified by the assessed workload
Source reference: p. 5Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and no orders were made as to costs
Source reference: p. 6Original Court PDF
Amrik KaurvsD/o Post
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in