AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:
“a) set aside order dated 30/06/2017 passed by Disciplinary Authority and direct the Respondent to restore the benefit of 41DDR/CR and pay the salary of 41 days (Rs.37,717/-) with interest.
b) direct the Respondent to grant DDR to the Applicant for duty on Delhi-Lahore bus service at the same rate as provided to drivers performing duty on any other route;
c) pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Factual matrix
2.1 The present applicant joined as driver with the Respondent Organisation with effect from December 2017. In the year 2014, the applicant was chosen as one of the Drivers to drive the DTC Bus operating between Delhi and Lahore. He drove the said bus between Delhi and Attari Border, 35 Kms away from Lahore and back to Delhi during the period 1.4.2016 to 31.8.2016 for 58 days in the first instance and from 1.9.2016 to 17.3.2017 for 66 days. The Respondents initially granted and paid 58 DDRs (daily Duty Rests) for the first period and 66 DDRs for the second period. The respondents deducted 26 days salary from the salary of October, 2016 and 15 days salary from the salary of the applicant for the month of March 2017. Being aggrieved, the applicant submitted a Representation dated 26.5.2017 (annexure-A3) followed by another representation dated 30.6.2017 (Annexure-A4). The respondents vide impugned letter dated 30.6.2017 (Annexure-A1) informed the applicant that the salaries as mentioned above were deducted on account of payment of excess DDRs to the present applicant for his duty as driver, driving the Delhi-Lahore Bus from Delhi to Attari and back. The letter expressly mentioned that the applicant had been paid excess DDR for 15 days for the first period and for 26 days for the second period of his duty on the said route as mentioned above. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed an appeal dated 13.12.2017 followed by reminder dated 24.1.2018. As he did not get any response to these, being aggrieved he filed the present OA seeking aforementioned relief.
Notices were issued to the respondents and they filed their reply, to which the applicant has filed the rejoinder.
Submission by learned counsel for the applicant
4.1 The learned counsel for the applicant states that the respondents have wrongly deducted the alleged excess DDR paid to the applicant. He states that as per extant policy of the respondents, the applicant is entitled to 1 DDR after completing 14 hours continuous duty. He was performing duty for more than 15 hours continuously for one Trip to Lahore and similar period of duty for the return journey. Accordingly, he was entitled for 1.5 DDRs for each trip. Hence, his initial payment was as per the exact policy by the respondents. The subsequent deduction from the salary on account of alleged excess payment of DDRs is based on erroneous calculations of DDRs. Moreover, the respondents have not given any notice to the applicant prior to effecting such recovery, violating the principles of natural justice.
Submission by learned counsel for the respondents
5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, relying on the counter affidavit filed by the respondents’ states that there was no erroneous calculation by the respondents. It is rather the erroneous calculation in the first instance by the officials giving him extra DDRs which he was not entitled. Hence, when the mistake was noticed, corrective action was taken and the excess payment was adjusted against his salaries for October, 2016 and March, 2017. To clear the misunderstanding by the applicant, he referred to Paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents which is reproduced bellow:
“From India (As per Driver Memo)
Reporting Time for at I.P.Depot
:04:15
Out shedding time from I.P.Depot
:04:45
Departure from Dr.Ambedkar Terminal
:06:00
Arrival at Gulburg-III Lahore Terminal
:19:10
Duty Off at Lahore Terminal
:19:50
Total Duty Time
:15:35 hrs.
“From Pakistan (As per Driver Memo)
Reporting Time for at Lahore Terminal Out shedding/Departure time from Lahore Terminal
:04:30
:05:00
Arrival at Dr. Ambedkar Terminal
:19:10-19:30
In Shedding Time in I.P. Depot
:19:45
Duty Off at I.P. Depot
:20:05
Total Duty Time
:15:35 hrs.
Thus in view of the same, the total journey time from one side was 15:35 hours which had not been changed till March-2016, however the journey time got reduced by 04.05 hrs.”
5.2 Referring to the above clarification, the learned counsel for the respondent states that the applicant was wrongly given extra DDR taking the travel time from Delhi to Lahore, which was the situation before due to security reasons, the DTC buses terminated at Attari border rather than going to Lahore. Accordingly, each trip got reduced by 4 hours 5 minutes. Hence, the applicant was entitled for one DDR for such trip than 1.5 DDRs. Hence, the excess DDRs paid to the applicant was adjusted from the salary payable to the applicant for months of October. 2016 and March 2017. Hence, there was no illegality involved in such adjustment.
Analysis
6.1 The applicant has failed to rebut the averment by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the journey/duty period got reduced to 11.30 hours from 15.35 hours when the DTC Delhi-Lahore Bus terminated at Attari than going to Lahore. As the period of duty got reduced, the excess hours of duty got reduced to that extent. The officials of the Respondents initially, without taking the reduced hours of journey granted 1.5 DDRs for each trip under the impression that still the bus going to Lahore and back to Delhi from Lahore. It may be due to over sight by not taking into account the changed situation in running the Delhi-Lahore Bus. Hence, the reduction in entitlement to DDRs is legitimate.
6.2 The applicant has failed to convince this Tribunal that he was entitled to the DDRs as he was getting prior to the termination of DTC Delhi-Lahore Bus at Atari than going to Lahore. In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the action by the respondents in adjusting the excess DDRs drawn from the salaries payable to the applicant. He was very much in service when the adjustment took place and the recovered amount pertains to the dates when the adjustments were affected.
Conclusion
7.1 In view of the above, the present OA lacks merit and hence, it is dismissed.
7.2 No order as to costs.
Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.