Lakhan Lal Sahu vs Union of India & Ors.

Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-

Brief facts of this case are that the applicant was working on the post of E.D.D.A. (Extra Departmental Delivery Agent) at Anetha Post Office. He had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No./462/2018 which was decided on 14.10.2020 and specific direction was issued to the respondents not to assign any additional work to him and he be permitted to join the duty. The contention of the respondents was also observed in the aforesaid O.A. that the absence period will be regularised. It is further pleaded that due to Covid-19, the applicant could not come to work physically in the office from April 2020 to November 2020. It is further pleaded that pursuant to the direction issued in the previous O.A., the applicant has joined but prayer of the applicant for payment of TRCA for the aforesaid period has been illegally not allowed. Thus, it has been prayed to allow the O.A. with the direction to the respondents to issue TRCA for the period disclosed in it.

The respondents have filed the counter affidavit specifically pleading that the applicant has not worked since 14.02.2020 to 02.11.2020. Thus, he is not entitled for the TRCA for the aforesaid period. In paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit, this fact has been specifically mentioned that the fact disclosed in the O.A. are false. The applicant was allowed to join the duty in compliance with the direction given in O.A./462/2018. It is also the contention of the respondents that since the applicant did not perform the duty and was absent without any information or sanction of leave, this O.A. is not liable to be allowed.

Rejoinder has also been filed stating almost the same facts. It has also been pleaded that the applicant was aged about 65 years and during Covid-19 pandemic, he was not in a position to join the duty physically. Thus, respondents be directed to sanction the TRCA amount for the period disclosed in the O.A.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that in paragraph no.16 of the order passed in O.A./462/2018 filed by the applicant before this Tribunal which was decided on 14.10.2020, the respondents have themselves stated that leave and TRCA will be regularised. The applicant’s prayer for grant of TRCA for the period disclosed in the O.A. has been denied on the ground that the order dated 14.02.2020 has not been complied with by the applicant. Referring to the judgement and order passed in the O.A./462/2018, it was further argued that the aforesaid O.A. was decided on 14.10.2020. Respondents are denying the benefit of TRCA only on this ground that the order dated 14.10.2020 has not been complied with by the applicant. This issue was raised in the aforesaid O.A. also and the respondents themselves stated in paragraph 16 of the judgement that the leave and TRCA of the applicant will be regularised as per the departmental rules. Thus, respondents’ defence is illegal. It is also argued that no disciplinary proceeding has been started against the applicant regarding the unauthorised absence. Thus, respondents must have regularised the absence period converting it into the leave available in the account of the applicant or by granting Extra Ordinary Leave. Thus, argued to allow the O.A.

Learned counsel for the respondents argued that it is immaterial whether any disciplinary proceeding was started against the applicant for unauthorised absence or not. Since he was absent, he is not entitled for TRCA for the period disclosed in the O.A. It is also argued that the O.A./462/2018 was decided without calling for any detailed counter affidavit and only on the basis of a short counter affidavit. Thus, the applicant’s plea that absence period should be regularised as per departmental rule does not extend any benefit to him. Thus, referring to the facts disclosed in the Counter Affidavit, prayer was made to dismiss the O.A.

I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.

Present O.A. has been filed for the TRCA of the period between April 2020 to November 2020. A judicial notice can be taken in the matter that lock down was imposed nationwide in the month of March 2020 itself. The applicant’s plea is that he was an old person aged about 65 years due to which he could not physically appear to perform his duties in the office. If the submission raised on behalf of the applicant is taken into consideration, the applicant’s plea is liable to be accepted. During the Lockdown period, the transport facility was largely affected and it was not available for regular commutations. The applicant was posted on the post of E.D.D.A. Thus, denial of TRCA only on this basis that the applicant did not perform duty is not justifiable. Firstly, the respondents should have issued the salary for the aforesaid period. Secondly, the absence period, for which if any disciplinary proceeding has not been started against the applicant, should have been regularised converting it into leave available in the account of the applicant or by granting extra ordinary leave.

In the order dated 14.10.2020 passed in O.A./462/2018, paragraph 15 to 19 read as under:-

Taking into account the discussions made hereinabove, as well as the order passed in O.A./462/2018 observing the contention of the respondents that leave and TRCA of the applicant will be regularized as per the departmental rules, the respondents are hereby directed to regularise the TRCA of the applicant for the month of April 2020 to November 2020 as per departmental rules as well the observation made hereinabove and make the consequential payments to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the O.A. stands allowed. All associated M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.