Reinstated GDS employees are entitled to full TRCA, arrears and bonus for the exclusion period.

The applicant was engaged as a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDS BPM) in 2013.

Her services were terminated on 5 May 2016; the CAT, Lucknow Bench, set aside the termination and directed that she be allowed to work, and the challenge to that order before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, was dismissed.

She resumed duty on 29 February 2020, but was not paid TRCA, arrears or bonus for the period she was out of service.

The respondents rejected her claim on 29 December 2022, principally because the earlier order did not direct payment for that period.

She sought to have that rejection quashed and to receive the claimed benefits on the same terms as similarly situated GDS employees.

1. Whether the applicant was entitled to full TRCA, arrears and bonus for the period between termination and reinstatement, despite the absence of an express payment direction in the earlier proceedings.

2. Whether the rejection of her claim should be set aside in light of the relief granted to similarly situated GDS employees.

The Tribunal proceeded under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicant brought the Original Application.

It relied on the CAT’s common judgment dated 8 March 2022 in Subhash Chandra and Others v. Union of India and Others, which directed payment of TRCA, arrears and other consequential benefits to similarly situated GDS employees whose terminations had been set aside.

It also considered the earlier proceedings concerning the applicant and the judgments relied upon by her, including Birbal and Others v. Union of India and Others and Union of India and Others v. Archana Mishra and Others.

The operative principle applied was that an employee reinstated after an unlawful termination may be granted the same TRCA-related relief as similarly situated employees where the Tribunal’s precedent supports that relief.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s termination had been set aside and that she had subsequently been reinstated, but remained unpaid for the intervening period.

It treated the 8 March 2022 common judgment as applicable because it concerned similarly situated GDS employees whose termination orders had been set aside and who had sought TRCA for the period they remained out of service.

Although the applicant had approached the Tribunal belatedly and the earlier order contained no specific direction to pay TRCA, the Tribunal considered those circumstances insufficient to deny relief consistent with its prior judgment.

It therefore found the rejection of her claim unsustainable.

The respondents were directed to calculate and release the admissible amount within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs; associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of.