SHEODHYAN SINGH vs Postal on 15 October 2026

O R D E R

[Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, Member (A)]

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying for the following relief: “8.1 The Hon’ble Court may be directed to the respondent authority to pay amount of Group Insurance, Severance Allowance & Gratuity as per OM dated 17.06.2018 (Annexure A/2) along with admissible interest with cost thereupon. 8.2 Any other relief/reliefs, the applicant is entitled and Your Lordhips may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”

2. The applicant has instituted the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay the admissible amounts towards Group Insurance, severance allowance and gratuity in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2018, along with admissible interest and costs. 2.1 The applicant superannuated from service with effect from 01.01.2018 while working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM), Shahjahanpur Branch Office, under Nalanda Postal Division. Upon retirement, he was initially paid Rs. 60,000/- towards ex-gratia gratuity and Rs. 48,000/- towards severance allowance, as reflected in the departmental memorandum dated 16.11.2018.

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

Patna Bench 2.2 The applicant contends that the aforesaid payments did not reflect his entitlement under the Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2018. According to him, he was entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- towards gratuity and Rs. 1,40,000/- towards severance allowance. He also alleged non-payment of the Group Insurance amount and submitted a representation dated 18.03.2019 before the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle. 2.3 The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 762/2019. By order dated 09.08.2019, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider his representation in accordance with the applicable terms and policy and to pass an appropriate order within the stipulated period. 2.4 The applicant thereafter instituted the present proceedings, alleging that the respondents had not granted his admissible benefits in full and had paid only Rs. 5,000/- additionally towards severance allowance.

3. The respondents have contested the claim. They submit that, apart from the initial payments, the applicant was paid a further sum of Rs. 90,000/- towards the differential amount of gratuity and Rs. 5,000/- towards the differential amount of severance allowance, vide departmental memoranda dated 08.11.2019. They have further placed on record evidence showing credit of Rs. 12,053/- towards Group Insurance in the applicant’s bank account on 07.11.2019. According to the respondents, the payments were

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

Patna Bench sanctioned and made in accordance with the applicable departmental instructions, and no further amount remains payable.

4. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicant to dispute the specific assertions regarding the subsequent payments, the credit of the Group Insurance amount or the calculations furnished by the respondents. The learned counsels for both parties have been heard, and the pleadings and documents available on record have been considered. Thereafter, I have arrived at the following conclusion: 4.1 Points for determination: The principal question requiring determination is whether, in view of the subsequent payments evidenced by the respondents, any further amount remains due to the applicant under the claims raised in the present Original Application. This claim is required to be examined separately under the three heads of benefit. A. Gratuity and severance allowance The record, as presented by the parties, establishes that the applicant initially received Rs. 60,000/- towards ex-gratia gratuity and Rs. 48,000/- towards severance allowance. The respondents have subsequently produced departmental records showing payment of a further Rs. 90,000/- towards gratuity and Rs. 5,000/- towards severance allowance.

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

Patna Bench The material placed on record thus indicates aggregate payments of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards gratuity and Rs. 53,000/- towards severance allowance. The applicant’s claim for severance allowance, however, cannot be decided merely by comparing the aggregate payment with the figure of Rs. 1,40,000/- asserted in the Original Application. The applicable departmental instructions, their effective date, the applicant’s eligibility thereunder and the calculation adopted by the competent authority must govern the determination. The respondents have stated that the differential payments were sanctioned in accordance with the applicable departmental policy, referring to the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.2019 and the relevant sanction and calculation records. The applicant has not filed a rejoinder disputing the calculations furnished by the respondents or identified any specific computational error in the amount sanctioned and paid. The absence of a rejoinder does not, by itself, establish the correctness of every assertion made in the written statement. Nevertheless, where the respondents have produced documentary material supporting the payments and the applicant has not identified any specific deficiency in those payments, the material presently available does not furnish a sufficient basis for any further adjudication in this regard.

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

Patna Bench It is, however, necessary to distinguish between the fact of payment and the correctness of the underlying entitlement. A payment record may establish that a sum has been credited, but it does not, by itself, establish that the amount represents the full entitlement under the governing instructions. In the present case, no specific provision or calculation error has been demonstrated by the applicant, on the pleadings and material described before this Tribunal, which would justify a further monetary direction. B. Group Insurance The applicant’s allegation of non-payment of Group Insurance is met by the respondents’ documentary assertion that Rs. 12,053/- was credited to his bank account on 07.11.2019. The relevant bank-credit record has been produced as Annexure R/5 to the written statement. In the absence of any specific challenge to the authenticity of that record or any material showing that the amount was not received, the allegation of complete non-payment of Group Insurance cannot be sustained. The applicant has also not established, on the material described in the pleadings, that any further amount under this head remains unpaid. C. Effect of the earlier order The order dated 09.08.2019 in O.A. No. 762/2019 required the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation in accordance with the applicable terms and policy and to pass an

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

Patna Bench appropriate order. The earlier direction did not, as reproduced in the present pleadings, itself adjudicate an unconditional entitlement to the particular amounts now claimed. 4.2 The question in the present Original Application is, therefore, whether the respondents’ subsequent action discloses any surviving deficiency warranting intervention of this Tribunal. The departmental records relied upon by the respondents indicate that the differential amounts were sanctioned and paid and that the Group Insurance amount was also credited to the applicant’s account. No specific and substantiated shortfall has been established on the material presently before the Tribunal. 4.3 The Tribunal is conscious that retiral benefits, once found admissible under the governing rules or instructions, must be paid in accordance with those provisions. At the same time, a further payment cannot be directed merely on the basis of an asserted figure without establishing that the applicable instructions confer the claimed entitlement and that the amount already paid falls short of it.

5. In view of the above discussion and analysis this Tribunal finds no sufficient ground to direct a further payment towards gratuity, severance allowance or Group Insurance. The applicant has not established an outstanding monetary liability on the part of the respondents warranting the relief sought.

KABI SURYARO OP KABI

Patna Bench

6. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is dismissed. The prayer for interest, being consequential upon the claim for further payment which has not been established, is also declined.

7. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Kumar Rajesh Chandra)

Administrative Member Srk

KABI SURYARO OP KABI