Ashok Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors.

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was medically decategorized from the post of Goods Guard and, on the recommendation of the Screening Committee dated 13.06.2014, was posted as Senior Clerk under the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Jhansi. Vide order dated 29.02.2016, he was attached to the Store Department under the Guard Supervisor, where he was required to work six days a week, whereas the ministerial staff of the Operating Department worked only five days a week. The applicant, therefore, submitted a representation dated 10.04.2016 claiming the admissible rest day/overtime allowance for the additional working day, for the period from 13.08.2014 till his retirement. His claim was rejected by the Pension Adalat vide order dated 03.12.2020, pursuant to which he got a legal notice dated 15.06.2021 issued through his counsel. The applicant thereafter filed OA No. 1148 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.01.2022, with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on his representation/legal notice. In compliance with the said direction, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 10.02.2022, which has been assailed by the applicant in the present OA, with a prayer for reconsideration of his claim in accordance with the applicable rules and the facts of the case.

Per contra, the respondents have denied the contentions of applicant by filing counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant was medically decategorized from the post of Goods Guard on 23.05.2014 and was posted as Senior Clerk in the Operating Department vide Office Order dated 13.06.2014. He was subsequently posted under the Guard Supervisor for clerical work in the Store Section vide order dated 29.02.2016, as per administrative requirement. It has been stated that the applicant was required to perform only clerical work for 40 hours per week, as prescribed for ministerial staff. No work beyond the prescribed weekly hours was taken from him. After his representation dated 10.04.2016, Saturday was also granted to him as a rest day. The respondents have further stated that there is no provision for payment of overtime allowance to the clerical staff in the circumstances claimed by the applicant. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to any overtime payment for the period from 13.08.2014 to 30.11.2019. The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 was passed after considering the applicant's representation and legal notice in compliance with the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in OA No. 1148 of 2021. The respondents have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the present OA.

The applicant has filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit as filed by the respondents refuting the contentions made by the respondents in their Counter Affidavit while reiterating the averments made in the O.A. Nothing new has been added.

I have heard Shri S.M Ali, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that after being medically decategorized from the post of Goods Guard, was posted as Senior Clerk. It was argued that the ministerial staff in the Operating Department were working for five days in a week, whereas the applicant was made to work for six days in a week after his posting in the Store Section. Thus, he was required to work on the additional day without being given the admissible rest day or overtime allowance. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the applicant had raised his claim through his representation dated 10.04.2016 and legal notice dated 15.06.2021, but the same was not properly considered. It was argued that the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 was passed without properly examining the applicant's claim and the applicable rules. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to payment of overtime allowance for the period claimed by him and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was posted as Senior Clerk and was assigned only clerical work in the Store Section as per the administrative requirement. He was required to work for 40 hours per week, as prescribed for ministerial staff and no work beyond the prescribed weekly hours was taken from him. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that, on the applicant's representation dated 10.04.2016, Saturday was granted to him as a rest day. Therefore, there was no additional working day for which overtime allowance could be claimed. It was also submitted that there is no provision for payment of overtime allowance to the applicant in the circumstances of the present case. The impugned order was passed after due consideration and in compliance with the order dated 06.01.2022 in OA No. 1148 of 2021. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to any relief and the OA is liable to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

Admittedly the applicant was medically decategorized from the post of Goods Guard and was posted as Senior Clerk. Thereafter, he was assigned clerical work in the Store Section under the Guard Supervisor. The respondents have explained that the posting was made as per administrative requirement.

The main claim of the applicant is that he was made to work for six days in a week, whereas other ministerial staff was working for five days and therefore he is entitled to overtime allowance. However, the respondents have specifically stated that the applicant was required to work only for 40 hours in a week and no work beyond the prescribed weekly hours was taken from him. The respondents have also stated that pursuant to his representation dated 10.04.2016, Saturday was granted to him as a rest day.

The applicant has not been able to place any material on record to show that he actually worked beyond the prescribed 40 hours in a week or he was compelled to work on his rest day without compensatory rest. Mere fact that he was posted in the Store Section under the Guard Supervisor does not establish that he worked overtime.

It is also noticed that the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 was passed by the respondents in compliance with the order dated 06.01.2022 passed in OA No. 1148 of 2021, after considering the applicant's representation and legal notice. No sufficient ground has been shown by the applicant to interfere with the said order.

In view of the above discussion, the applicant has failed to establish his entitlement to overtime allowance for the period from 13.08.2014 to 30.11.2019. The impugned order dated 10.02.2022 does not call for any interference.

Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.