Child Care Leave -no restriction on minimum day

No. 1 3018/6/2013-Estt.(L)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension

[ Department of Personnel & Training j

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2014

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Child Care Leave (CCL) in respect of Central Government Employees as a result of Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations — Clarification — regarding.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M No. 1 3018/2/2008-Estt.(L) dated 11/09/2008  regarding introduction of Child Care Leave(CCL) in respect of Central Government employees.

Subsequently, clarifications have been issued vide OMs dated 29.9.2008, 18.11.2008, 02.12.2008 and dated 07.09.2010. Child Care Leave at present is allowed for a minimum period of 15 days. References have been received from various quarters seeking a review of this stipulation.

2. The matter has been considered in consultation with Department of Expenditure, and it has been decided to remove the requirement of minimum period of 15 days' CCL. There is no change as regards other conditions of  this leave.
3. These orders take effect from the date of issue of this Office Memorandum.

( S.G. Mulchandaney )

Under Secretary to the Government of India
1. All Ministries/Departments of the Government of India, etcT. el.No.26164316
(As per standard mailing list).
2. All State Government and Union Territories.
3. Governors of all States/Lt. Governors of all Union Territories.
4. Secretary, National Council of JCM (Staff Side), 13-C, Feroz Shah Road,
New Delhi.
5. All Members of Staff Side of the National Council of JCM/Departmental
Council.
6. All Officers/Sections of DOP&T/Department of Administrative Reforms
and Public Grievances/ Department of Pensions and Pensioners'
Welfare/PESB.
7. Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure.
8. Railway Board, New Delhi.
10.50 Spare copies.

Ms. Hilda Abraham,Hon CPMG,Odisha Circle transferred

Ms. Hilda Abraham (IPoS-1979),CPMG, Orissa Circle transferred as CPMG, of Karnataka
Circle Vice Ms Yesodhara Menon promoted in the grade of Member, Postal Services Board.


Ms Devika Kumar (IPoS-1981) DDG (Philately), Postal Directorate transferred as CPMG, Orissa Circle (on downgraded post of SAG) Vice Ms Hilda Abraham transferred as CPMG, Karnataka Circle.

Benefit of BCR Scheme is to be extended from the date the employee completes 26 years of service,

Benefit of BCR Scheme is to be extended from the date the employee completes 26 years of service,
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ,ERNAKULAM BENCH

O.A. NO.792/2010

Dated this the 16th day of May, 2011

C O R A M

HON'BLE Mrs.K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

T.P.Sukumara Pilla, S/o late Parameswara Panicker Parvathy Bhavan, Kadayanikkad P.O,
Kangazha-686541, Kottayam. Applicants
By Advocate Mr P.K.Madhusoodhanan
Vs

1 Superintendent of Post Offices, Changanassery
Division, Changanassery - 686101.

2 The Assistant Director (Staff), Department
of Posts, O/o the Post Master General,
Central Region, Kochi - 682018.

3 Chief Post Master General, Department
of Posts, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-695033.

4 Union of India, represented by its Secretary
Govt of India, Mini.of Communications, Deptt.
Of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, NewDelhi-1..
Respondents
By Advocate Mr.M.K.Aboobacker, ACGSC.

The Application having been heard on 1.3.2011 the Tribunal delivered the following:
O R D E R

HON'BLE Mrs.K.NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER


In this O.A the applicant is aggrieved by the denial of benefits of Biennial Cadre Review (BCR for short) Scheme though he had completed 26 years of service and has sought a direction to the spondents to grant him the benefits of BCR on completion of 26 years of regular service.
2 Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are that the applicant entered the service as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent on 19.1.1967. On passing the departmental examination he was promoted as Postman on 13.3.74. Thereafter he was promoted as Clerk on 24.11.1981. He was given Time Bound Onetime Promotion on completion of 16 years of service w.e.f 29.11.1997. While he was working as Sub-postmaster, Kangazha , on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.12.2007. Having completed 26 years service on 29.11.2007 the applicant became eligible for grant of higher pay scale as a benefit under the BCR Scheme, but he was not granted the same. Hence theO.A.
3 The respondents contested the O.A. It is submitted that the Biennial Cadre Review was introduced in the Department w.e.f 1.10.1991. It was intended to provide a second financial up- gradation to those officials who have completed 26 years of satisfactory qualifying service, linked to posts identified for such up gradation on the crucial dates. This scheme is implemented by earmarking two crucial dates viz. 1st January and 1st July every year, by taking into account the list of officials who have completed 26 or more years of service as on these dates, subject to their otherwise being found fit. It is submitted that the conditions for BCR placement prescribe completion of 26 years of qualifying service which in the case of the applicant is on 18.12.2007 after deducting the non-qualifying service. On the crucial date of review on 1.7.2007 the applicant had not completed 26 years of service. On the next date of review on 1.1.08 he had superannuated from service. The Screening Committee for placement under BCR was held on 4.6.08 and his name was not included as he was not on duty on the cut-off date of 1.1.2008. Therefore the applicant was not granted the BCR placement. There was no willful negligence or omission on the part of the respondents in granting the said benefit to the applicant.

4 Rejoinder to the reply was filed by the applicant disputing the date he has completed 26 years qualifying service on 18.12.2007. He submitted that the non-qualifying service of 24 days in the cadre of Postal Assistant on the occasion of general strikes of postal employees has been decided (Annx.A4) to treat it as Earned Leave. Accordingly the applicant has applied for Earned Leave for 14 days vide Annx.A6.
5 Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6 The issue whether the benefits under the BCR Scheme dated 11.9.1991 are to be granted from the date of completion of 26 years of satisfactory service or from the crucial dates of 1st January or 1st July, as the case may be, has been decided by the CAT Lucknow Bench in A.L.Pal Vs. UOI 2002(1)ATJ 298 and by the CAT Mumbai Bench in K.G.Patil Vs. UOI, 2003(3) ATJ 594. It was held that the benefit of BCR Scheme is to be extended from the date the employee completes 26 years of service.

6 The issue involved in this OA was already under consideration before this Tribunal in OA 430/09, K.Sasidharan Nair Vs. Sr.Superintendent, RMS 'TV' Division, Trivandrum & Ors and by order dated 5.1.2010 this Tribunal held as under:
" Accordingly the O.A is allowed. Annx.A7 order is set aside to the extent it denies the benefits of the BCR scheme to the applicant. The respondents are directed to include the name of the applicant in Annx.A5 list for grant of the BCR benefits w.e.f. 10.9.2007 and grant him all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs."


8 In view of the above position, I follow the order of this Tribunal in OA 430/2009. Accordingly the O.A is allowed. Annx.A3 order is set aside to the extent it denies the benefits of the BCR scheme to the applicant. The respondents are directed to grant the BCR benefits w.e.f. 4.12.2007, in view of Annx.A4 order and the fact that he applied for EL for 14 days (Annx.A6) and grant him all consequential benefits within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

(K.NOORJEHAN)

Stitching Charges for Uniform Staff revised with effect from 01-04-2011

Stitching Charges for Uniform Staff revised with effect from 01-04-2011
F.No. 141 1/2010-JCA2 Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel 86 Training)
North Block, New Delhi Dated the 18" April, 2011
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: Revision of Stitching Charges.

The undersigned is directed to say that based on a demand raised by the Staff Side, in National Council (JCM), the question of revising the Stitching Charges of Uniforms, supplied to Common Categories of employees (Multi-Tasking Staff - erstwhile Group 'D' posts of Peon, Daftry, Jamadar, Junior Gestetner Operator, Frash, Chowkidar, Safaiwala, Mali etc. and Staff Car Drivers, Dispatch Riders etc.) in the Central Secretariat and its Attached and Subordinate Offices, has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance. Consequently, it has been decided to enhance the rates of stitching charges, with effect from 1 st April, 20 1 1 thereby modifying the earlier instructions issued vide this Ministry's O.M. No. 14/3/2006-JCA dated 28" September, 2006.
2. The revised rates of stitching charges, with effect from 1st April, 2011, will be as under:-
Winter
(1) Buttoned-up-coat and pant - Rs.750/-

(2) Over Coat for Staff Car Drivers - Rs.600/-

(3) Ladies half-coat - Rs.600/-

Summer
(4) Pant (Terricot) - Rs.135/-

(5) Bush Shirt (Polyvastra) - ' Rs. 60/-

(6) Blouse - Rs. 45/ -

(7) Petticoat - Rs. 30/-

(8) Salwar Kameez - Rs. 90/-

Protective clothing [for Mails / Bhisties]
(9) Wjama Rs.24/-

(10) Short (Half-Pant) Rs.60/-

(11) Shirt (Cotton) Rs.45/-

3. It may please be noted that the reimbursement of Stitching charges at the prescribed format should be done only after the stitched uniforms are produced and are duly stamped, with indelible ink, at an appropriate place on the wrong side of the stitched dress, for identification. A proper record and procedure should be evolved to ensure that the employees produce the stitched uniforms within a reasonable period (say one month) after the cloth is supplied to them.

4. This issues with the concurrence of Department of Expenditure vide ID No. 5(1)/E.I1(A)/2009 dated 08.04.201 1.
Hindi version will follow.
Director (JCA)
To
All Ministries

No recovery for Coop-society dues from DCRG

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH Original Application No. 457 of 2009 Tuesday, this the 05th day of April, 2011 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member M. Nagammal, aged 65 years, W/o. Maran, Door No. 579, Jeevanadham Road, Kallukkadai Medu, Pudumai Colony, Erode-638 001. ..... Applicant (By Advocate - Mr. T.C.G. Swamy) V e r s u s 1. Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town, Chennai-3. 2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat. ..... Respondents (By Advocate - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose) This application having been heard on 16.03.2011, the Tribunal on 05.04.11 delivered the following: O R D E R Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member The applicant is a widow, the only person eligible to receive all the death benefits of her son, late Jaganathan, who died on 05.11.2005 in an accident while working in the Railway service. She was issued with a pension calculation sheet dated 18.04.2006 as at Annexure A-5 showing the amount of DCRG as Rs. 1,15,479/-. But she was paid only about Rs. 50,000/-. Aggrieved, she has filed this O.A for the following reliefs : (a) Direct the respondents to pay the death Gratuity as sanctioned in Annexure A-5 and all other death benefits liable to be paid to the applicant consequent upon the demise of her son late Jaganathan with interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.06.2006 till the date of full and final settlement of the same; (b) Award costs and incidental to this application; (c) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The applicant contended that the respondents are bound to pay the entire DCRG amount as indicated in A-5 and other death benefits. Non- feasance on the part of the respondents to pay the same is arbitrary and contrary to law. 3. The respondents contested the O.A. In their reply, they submitted that late Jaganathan was a habitual absentee who was removed from service twice in his career for unauthorised absence, but later reinstated in service treating the intervening period as Extra Ordinary leave. On innumerable occasions, he was on unauthorised absence. Even though his span of service extended from 1983 to 2005, his actual qualifying service after deducting the Extra Ordinary Leave for unauthorised absence which are counted as non-qualifying service, comes to 16 years only, based on which the DCRG amount is Rs. 65988/- only. From the above amount, a sum of Rs. 13255/- is to be recovered towards Railway dues which consists of funeral advance, electrical energy, rent and overpayment of pay and further an amount of Rs. 25758/- is to be recovered towards dues to Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Trichy. Thus, the total amount to be recovered comes to Rs. 39013/-. Afterdeducting the same, the net amount payable towards DCRG comes to Rs.26975/- and the same was paid alongwith other settlement dues amounting to Rs. 26356/-. Based on a wrong notion that the late employee had got qualifying service of 21 years, his DCRG was assessed as Rs. 1,15,479/-. On verification, the qualifying service was found to be only 16 years. Accordingly, his DCRG was estimated as Rs. 65988/-. By an oversight the earlier proposed amount of Rs. 1,15,479/- towards DCRG was left out to be deleted in Annexure A-5. The applicant has no right to claim any additional amount other than what is legally due to her. The O.A is liable to be dismissed. 3. In the rejoinder filed by the applicant, it was submitted that the applicant is not responsible for the mistake alleged to have been committed by the respondents. The period of service not specifically shown as non qualifying in the service records with the acknowledgement of the railway servant concerned cannot be treated as non-qualifying service. The respondents have not shown how they can make the recovery in respect of electrical energy, rent, overpayment of pay and dues towards the Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society in the absence of statutory empowerment of respondents to do so. 4. In the reply to the rejoinder, the respondents submitted that the inadvertent omission on the part of the respondents in making necessary corrections in Annexure A-5 will not give the applicant any added advantage for claiming additional benefits other than what is legally due to her. Rule 15 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, authorizes recovery of dues from DCRG. 5. In the additional rejoinder filed by the applicant, it was submitted that arbitrarily reducing the qualifying service as ascertained in Annexure A-5 without giving due notice is unsustainable. In Para 1234 of the Indian Railway Administration and Finance, it is stipulated that the signature of the employees governed by Pension Rules is to be obtained in the service book in token of their having inspected the service books. The recovery as stated by the respondents is impermissible in the absence of any statutory provision. 6. I have heard Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy, the learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, the learned SCGSC, appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 7. Late Jaganathan was an employee governed by the Pension Rules. As per Para 1234 of the Indian Railway Administration and Finance, it is the duty of every Head of Office to initiate action to show the service book to the railway servants governed by pension rules under his administrative control every year and to obtain their signatures therein in token of their having inspected the service books. As per the say of the respondents, late Jaganathan was a habitual absentee. He was removed from service twice in his career for unauthorised absence. Afterwards, considering his appeal he was reinstated in service duly treating the intervening period as Extra Ordinary Leave. Other than Extra Ordinary Leave granted on medical certificates, the appointing authority at the time of granting Extra Ordinary Leave may allow the period of that leave to count as qualifying service if such leave is granted to a Railway servant due to his inability to join or rejoin duty on account of civil commotion or for prosecuting higher scientific or technical studies as per Rule 36 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Therefore, in the case of late Jaganathan, the respondents are justified in not counting his Extra Ordinary Leave for the purpose of pensionary benefits. It is true that his service book does not contain the signature of late Jaganathan in token of his having inspected it. This is a technical infirmity. The respondents have been magnanimous in reinstating a habitual absentee in service on two occasions. If the service book was not inspected by the employee, the blame should be shared by the employee also. The technical infirmity of not having employee's signature in the service book cannot legitimize counting of unauthorised absence as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. The respondents have every right to correct an inadvertent error in calculating the qualifying service of late Jaganathan. The initial error on the part of the respondents will not confer an enforceable right on the applicant to claim additional benefits other than what is legally due to her. 8. The relevant part of Rules 15(2) and 15(4)(ii) of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, read as follows : "15(2) : The railway or Government dues as ascertained and assessed, which remain outstanding till the date of retirement or death of the railway servant, shall be adjusted against the amount of the retirement gratuity or death gratuity or terminal gratuity and recovery of the dues against the retiring railway servant shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (4)." "15(4) (ii) : .......It is permissible to make recovery of Government dues from the retirement, death, terminal or service gratuity even without obtaining his consent, or without obtaining the consent of the members of his family in the case of a deceased railway servant." 9. As per the above rules, any advance, overpayment of pay and allowance, house rent, dues pertaining to Railway accommodation etc. can be recovered from the DCRG of the employee concerned without obtaining his consent. Therefore, the respondents are justified in making recovery of Rs. 13255/- from the DCRG amount of Rs. 65988/-. However, as per 15(3)(c) of the Pension Rules, the amounts payable by a railway servant to Consumer Co-Operative Societies, Consumer Credit Societies and the autonomous organisation may be recovered from the retirement gratuity which has become payable to the retiring railway servant provided he gives his consent for doing so in writing to the administration. In the instant case, the respondents have no case that late Jaganathan had given his consent for recovering the amount payable by him to Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Trichy. There is no justification or legal basis for recovering the amount of Rs. 25758/- from the DCRG amount of late Jaganathan. The amount unauthorisedly recovered by the respondents towards dues to Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Trichy, is to be refunded to the applicant. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated below. 10. The respondents are directed to pay the applicant an amount of Rs. 25758/- which was recovered unauthorisedly towards dues to Southern Railway Employees Co-Operative Credit Society, Trichy, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. No order as to costs. (Dated, the 05th April, 2011) (K. GEORGE JOSEPH) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Option be exercised for retrospective revision of Pay

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH O.A. NO. 180/2010 Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 C O R A M HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER HON'BLE Dr. K.B. SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER C. Radhakrishanan S/o. (late) R. Chami Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector Grade II/Sleeper Southern Railway / Coimbatore Residing at : "Krishna Priya" Swathy Nagar, Kallekulangara (P.O.) Palghat - 9. ..... Applicant (By Advocate Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy) Vs 1. Union of India represented by. The General Manager. Southern Railway, Headquarters Office Park Town (P.O), Chennai. 2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer Southern Railway, Palghat Division Palghat. .... Respondents (By Advocate Mr. P. Haridas) The Application having been heard on 18.02.2011, the Tribunal on 29.3.2011 delivered the following: O R D E R HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant, a Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector in the Palghat Division of Southern Railway, is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to accept his option for fixation of pay consequent upon re-fixation of pay with retrospective effect, while implementing the orders of the Tribunal in O.A. 63/2007. 2. The applicant is presently working as a Chief Travelling Ticket Inspector in the pay band of Rs. 9300-34900 with grade pay of Rs. 4200/- in the Palghat Division of Southern Railway. He had earlier approached theTribunal through O.A. 63/2007 for a declaration that he is entitled to have the pay of Rs. 350/- in the scale of Rs. 330-560 w.e.f. 16.12.1984 on par with his junior Shri K.R. Hariharan and to fix his pay at Rs. 350 in the scale of Rs. 260-400 with all consequential benefits. The Tribunal allowed the O.A and ordered the respondents to refix the pay notionally without arrears of pay (A-1). However, as regards denial of arrears, the applicant had filed WP(C) No. 11178 of 2009 before the High Court, which is pending. The applicant has also filed CPC No. 32 of 2009 before the Tribunal against non-fixation of pay as directed in O.A. 63/2007. The respondents filed a statement enclosing copy of order issued by the 2nd respondent (A-2) on the basis of which the Contempt Petition was closed. However, the applicant noticed he was denied an option for fixation of his pay on different dates of promotion. Therefore, he submitted a representation

(A-3). As there was no action he has filed this O.A for a direction to the respondents to act upon the options exercised by him in terms of A-3 and grant consequential benefit with all arrears. The main ground urged by the applicant is that as he has been granted revision of pay with retrospective effect, he is entitled to exercise option /re-option every time when the pay is fixed under FR 22 (I)(a)(1). 3. At the outset the respondents contended that the O.A is barred by limitation as the pay fixation sought to be revised relates to year 1984. They opposed the contention of the applicant that he is entitled to be given an option whenever pay is revised and fixed under Rule FR 22(1)(a)(1). They stated that the Tribunal in O.A. 63/2007 directed the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant in pay scale of Rs. 260-400 as on 14/16.12.1984 w.r.t his presumptive substantive pay in the previous scale and extend consequential benefits without arrears of pay. They contended that the order cannot be treated as a fresh promotion order enabling pay fixation as per the applicant's option. They also relied on the letter No. E(P&A)II-81/PP-4 dated 13.11.1981 under which the employee has an option. They stated that the applicant has however not exercised his option in the prescribed format. There is no record to show that he had exercised his option. Revision of pay on par with his junior is not a promotion order and hence he is not entitled to exercise an option as in the case of promotion. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the documents produced before us. 5. The issue of revision of pay of the applicant started with the direction of the Tribunal in O.A. 63/2007. The operative portion of the order is extracted below: "8 For the reasons stated as above, the OA is allowed as follows. The impugned order dated 7.7.2006 is quashed in so far as it relates to the rejection of the applicants request for refixation of his pay. The respondents are directed to refix the pay of the applicant in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 as on 14/16.12.1984 with reference to his presumptive substantive pay in the previous scale and extend notional consequential benefits without arrears of pay to the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs." 6. The pay of the applicant is directed to be refixed w.r.t his presumptive substantive pay in the previous scale extending notional consequential benefits. The respondents have not gone on appeal against the order. The Writ Petition filed by the applicant is only against the denial of arrears. Therefore, the order directing pay fixation portion has become final and is binding on the respondents. The Tribunal has directed to refix the pay in the scale of Rs. 260-400 as on 14/16.12.1984. Therefore, while implementing the order of the Tribunal, the respondents are bound to give an opportunity to the applicant to exercise the option available to him and ask him to submit his option in the prescribed proforma. The contention of the respondents that the applicant has not exercised option in the correct format is not tenable. It is the duty of the respondents to inform him about the fixation of his pay and seek option of the applicant. The respondents have not done so. The applicant did represent indicating his option for fixation of pay. The respondents have not accepted it. 7. In this view of the matter, the applicant is permitted to submit his option in the prescribed format and the respondents are directed to accept it and act upon it and refix the pay of the applicant following the direction of the Tribunal in O.A.63/2007. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs. Dated 29th March, 2011 DR. K.B. SURESH K. NOORJEHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

HRA admissible for de-quarterized Post Quarters

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK O.A No. 245 of 2010 Cuttack, this the 3rd January, 2011 Niranjan Nayak . Applicant -v- UOI and others . Respondents C O R A M THE HON BLE MR. C.R. MOHAPATRA, MEMBER (A)

Prayer of the Applicant in this OA is for direction to the Respondents to release his House Rent Allowance(in short HRA) and Conveyance Allowance ( in short CA) during his incumbency as Sub Postmaster, Debidol SO from 12.09.2006 to 19-06-2009 after quashing the order rejecting his claim under Annxure-A/11 dated 19.04.2010. 2. The contention of the Applicant is that Respondent No.4 vide Memo No.B/G-75 dated 31.8.2007 intimated the Respondent No.2 that the standard of accommodation required for C class SO comes to 1115 Sq.Ft against plinth area of 652 Sq.ft including post quarter. The rooms of the post quarter in question are very small and in one room of post quarter the post office Almirah and records are kept and used as Store Room. The electricity connection was disconnected since there is pending bill amounting to Rs.61,193/- and the post quarter is also in a dilapidated condition and is not habitable and also the Respondent No.4 recommended for de-quarterization. He has also placed reliance on the correspondence made in this regard so also the periodical inspection report stating that the quarter in question was not habitable for the stay of the Applicant. 3. According to the Respondents, in their counter filed in this case, the Applicant is not entitled to HRA & CA for the reason that prior to his promotion to Postal Assistant cadre, the Applicant (Niranjan Nayak) was working as Gramin Dak Sevak in Balikuda SO. After his promotion to postman cadre he worked as Postman and officiated as O/S Mails at Balikuda SO from 17.10.1977 to 13.07.1981 as a result he had rendered his entire period of service at Balikuda and Borikina SO which are within 8 KM radius of his native place. After that he was transferred to Devidol. His permanent residence is only 1 KM away from Balikuda. Borikina is 7 KM away from Balikuda. So he has spent more than 30 years in two offices namely Balikuda and Borikina. When he was posted at Devidol he became suffocated because he was in habit of residing at home getting HRA. It has further been stated that he being a senior official used to work as PA rather than working as SPM in single handed/double handed offices. The Devidol post office is functioning in the existing building since 1.3.1975. Previously nobody has ever complained about the unsuitability of the building. On his posting as SPM, Devidol the applicant did not occupy the quarters taking lot of pleas. The applicant is not residing in the said quarter and commuting between Devidol and Nagpur (Balikuda) daily. The post office in question is having the Post attached quarter in which the predecessor of the applicant was residing. The quarter was vacant from the day of the joining of the applicant. As per the Rules 37 of Postal V, Manual Vol.VI, Part I (Annexure-R/1) applicant was supposed to reside in the said quarter. When the applicant joined as SPM Debidol the quarter was habitable. Since the applicant did not intentionally and deliberately on some plea or the other occupied the quarters he is not entitled to the relief claimed in this OA and this OA is liable to be dismissed. 4. A rejoinder has been filed by the Applicant more or less stating the same thing as has been stated in the OA. 5. It reveals from the record that with this prayer applicant earlier approached first in OA No. 276 of 2008. Considering the rival submission of the parties made with reference to the pleadings and materials placed on record, in order dated 21st October, 2009 this Tribunal disposed of the matter. Relevant portion of the order is quoted herein below: ( 3). In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the matter, this Original Application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to make a detailed representation incorporating the document relied on in his rejoinder to the Respondent No. 2 within a period of seven days hence. On receipt of such representation, the Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider and dispose of the same with a reasoned and speaking order and communicate the result thereof to the Applicant within a period of 60 days. No costs. 6. RA No. 16 of 2009 filed by the Applicant seeking review of the aforesaid order was dismissed by this Tribunal on 07.12.2009. Thereafter, in compliance of the order of this Tribunal, by making representation dated 21.12.2009 by placing materials he tried to justify his claim for payment of the House Rent & Conveyance Allowances for the period from 12.09.2006 to 19.06.2009. He has also taken support of the decision of this Tribunal dated 21.10.2009 rendered in OA No. 463 of 2008. The Respondent No.2 rejected the claim of the applicant and communicated the decision to the applicant in letter dated 11th February, 2010. The said order of rejection was challenged by the Applicant in OA No. 111 of 2010. This Tribunal, in order dated 16th March, 2010 disposed of the matter relevant portion of the order reads as under: ( 4). Having heard the rival submissions of the parties perused the materials placed on record including the earlier orders of this Tribunal vis-`-vis the order under challenge. I find substantial force in the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant as it is seen that all the points taken in the representation of the applicant have not been taken into consideration by the Respondent No.2 while giving consideration and rejecting the representation of the Applicant. As such, for the ends of justice and to avoid waste of time, it is deemed fit and proper to dispose of this Original Application at this admission stage by quashing the order under Annexure-A/9 with direction to Respondent No.2 to give a fresh consideration to the grievance of the Applicant and pass a reasoned order under initiation to the Applicant within a period of 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly. 7. The prayer of the Applicant has again been rejected in Annexure-A/11 dated 19th April, 2010 against which the Applicant has approached this Tribunal in the present OA with the aforesaid prayer. 8. By reiterating the stand taken in the respective pleadings, Learned Counsel appearing for both sides have prayed for the relief in support of their claim and having heard them at length perused the materials placed on record. 9. Order of rejection under Annexure-A/11 for grant of HRA & CA for the period from 12.09.2006 to 10.06.2009 speaks as under: This is regarding compliance of the direction of Hon ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack dated 16.03.2010 in OA No. 111/10 filed by Shri Niranjan Nayak, Ex-SPM, Debidol SO and presently working as SPM, Borikina SO. The Hon ble Tribunal in its order, dated 16.03.2010 directed the Respondent No.2 that is Chief Postmaster General, Orissa Circle to consider the representation dated 21-12-2009 to give a fresh consideration to the grievance of the applicant and pass a reasoned order and speaking order within a period of 30 days. The Judgment as above was received on 29-03-2010. The said Sri Nayak in his representation has requested for payment of HRA in lieu of rent free accommodation for the period from 12.09.2006 to 10.06.2009 as SPM, Debidol on the plea of unsuitable and insufficient accommodation of the SPM. Shri Nayak joined as SPM Debidol SO on 12.9.2006. After joining he represented to the SPOs, Cuttack South Division, Cuttack as well as to this office for dequarterization of the pot quarters on the plea that the post quarters of Debidol SO is not suitable for residence o the SPM. The post quarters has not been dequarterized by the competent authority. The present SPM staying in the post quarters at Debidol SO has not represented for HRA in lieu of post quarters nor has he been given HRA in lieu of post quarters. In fact he has accepted the post quarters which is ready for occupation. The representation of the applicant and report dated 07.04.2010 of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South Division and other records have been considered as per the rulings of the Directorate regarding post quarters meant for Postmasters/Sub Post Masters. The claim of the applicant for payment of HRA for the period 12.9.2006 to 10.6.2009 as SPM Debidol SO has been considered in the light of above discussion and rejected as the same is not admissible as per the departmental rules and instructions on the subject and also because the same is not justified. 10. The reasons given in letter of rejection seem contrary to the record as could be evident from the contents of the letter under Annexure-A/5. Full text of the letter under Annexure-/5 is reproduced herein below: In continuation of this office letter of even no. dated 17.8.2007, the facts of the case is that Debidol C class delivery SO is functioning in the rented accommodation provided by Kanchanbala Padhi At/Po-Debidol. The SPM is provided with post quarter. The standard of accommodation required for C class delivery SO comes to 1115 sqft (copy enclosed) against available plinth area of 652 sft including Post quarter. On receipt of representation of Sri Niranjan Nayak, the ASPOs, I/C Jagatsinghpur Sub Division made spot visit and submitted his report stating that the rooms of the post quarter are very small and in one room of post quarter the SPM has kept post office Almirah and records and used as store room. This is to mention that the electricity connection to the post office has been disconnected since there is pending bill amounting to Rs.61193/- and the said bill is under enquiry. The post quarter is also in dilapidated condition. Hence the post quarters is not habitable and it is recommended for dequarterisatioin. Sri Niranjan Nayak SPM, Debidol joined as SPM Debidol on 12.09.06. He submitted one representation on 12.9.06 stating that he has not taken possession of post quarter since it is not habitable. He further requested that necessary order for drawal of house rent in lieu of rent free accommodation may be sanctioned in his favour. As per Director of Estate OM No.12035 (21)/90-POl.ll dtd 4.10.1991 (instruction under SR 316 A of FRSR Part-I, the successor should take possession of post quarter on his joining. The official joined on 12.9.06 but failed to take possession of post quarter in violating above instructions. Hence no order was issued for drawal of his HRA in lieu of rent free accommodation to the postmaster Jagatsinghpur HO. The Asst. Engineer Civil has proposed to visit the office on 4.7.07 but due to his otherwise engagement it was not feasible. Basing on the report of the ASPOs Jagatsinghpur Sub Division and IR remark of Para 46 of IR dtd 26.11.99 (ASPOs I/C Jagatsingpur) and Para 34 of IR dtd.2.11.01 of SPOs Cuttack South Dvn., it is proposed to dequarterised Debidol post quarter. Moreover as per CO letter No. Inv/Misc.-17/04 dtd.11.7.05 (copy enclosed) the proposal to shift the Post Office to other rented building has not been materialized due to non-availability of suitable accommodation. 11. From the contents of the letter it is clear that the post quarter was not in habitable position for the stay of the Applicant. It was also inadequate according to the yardstick of the space for the post quarter. Merely because the predecessor was and successor is residing in the quarters cannot be a ground to deny the applicant his legitimate right to get the HRA & CA in lieu of the accommodation. Applicant has been agitating the difficulty and expressing his inability to reside in the quarters. Non-availability of suitability accommodation cannot be a ground to compel the applicant to reside in the post quarters which is inadequate and having no minimum requirement for one s residing. It is not the case of the Respondents that the applicant was residing in the said quarters for the period in question. The reason of rejection shows without proper application of mind to the fact available on record. This apart, getting of HRA & CA when the post attached quarters was not adequate for residing came up for consideration before this Tribunal in OA No. 463 of 2008 filed by one Paramananda Nanda claiming HRA & CA for the period from 26.5.2004 to 25.5.2005 as he was not residing in the post attached quarters as the same was not commensurate with his status and position. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal on 21st October, 2009 directing payment of the HRA & CA for the aforesaid period. Relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below: (5.)As it appears, the above stand has again been reiterated in the report submitted by Respondent No.5 under Annexure-A/10 dated 08.11.2005 and Annexure-A/12 dated 20.02.2006 while meeting the queries made by Respondent No.4. From the above, it is clear that the quarters in question were not according to the entitlement of the Applicant. None can be insisted to do something beyond the rules. Similarly, none can be compelled upon to stay in a quarters which is not in accordance with his entitlement. Government is under obligation to provide quarters to its employees and in case of non-availability of quarters according to the entitlement of an employee the employee concerned is entitled to HRA. On going through the report submitted by the Respondent No. 4 in my opinion there remains nothing further to hold that in not occupying the quarters in question the applicant had violated the relevant rules. In the ircumstances, it is nothing but fair to hold that non-payment of the HRA and CA in lieu of the quarters cannot be justified. That the predecessors of the Applicant were occupying the quarters cannot be a ground to insist on the Applicant to reside in the quarters which was admittedly inadequate, in other words unsuitable for the applicant to stay. However, I refrain from quashing the order under Annexure-A/14 & A/16 in rejecting the prayer of the applicant for dequarterisation of the Post quarters; as quashing of the orders would tantamount to depriving the successor of applicant who might have been interested to take the quarters even with such deficiency. ( 6). In view of the discussions made above, as the Applicant did not occupy the quarters in question for the period he was holding the post, the Respondents are hereby directed to grant the Applicant HRA and on fulfilling the condition CA for the period from 26.05.2004 to 25.5.2005 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Similar grievance also came up for consideration in OA No. 141 of 2010 [Kabir Charan Mallick v Union of India and others]. This Tribunal allowed the prayer made in the OA by directing the Respondents to make payment of the HRA for the period from 1.10.2005 to 31.3.2009 to the Applicant therein. 13. On examination of the facts and issues involved and decided by this Tribunal in earlier two OAs (referred to above) vis-`-vis the facts and issue involved in the present case, I find no reason to differ from the view already taken in earlier cases. After going through the letter under Annexure-A/5, I also do not find any justifiable reason to uphold the decision taken in Annexuire-A/11 dated 19.04.2010 rejecting the claim of the applicant. Hence the order of rejection under Annexure-A/11 is hereby quashed. The Respondents are hereby directed to sanction and disburse the HRA/CA for the period from 12.09.2006 to 19.6.2009 within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of this order. 14. In the result, with the aforesaid observation and direction this OA stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- (C.R.MOHAPATRA) Member(Admn.)