Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Ramachandran M C vs Superintendent Of Post Offices ... on 9 November, 2023
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00490/2021
Thursday this the 9th day of November 2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Ramachandran.M.C.,
S/o.late Kunhikrishnan Nair,
Aged 60 years,
Multi Tasking Staff (Retired),
Koyilandi Head Post Office,
Vadakara Postal Division, Vadakara - 673 101.
Residing at Mathayothchalil House, Nochat Post,
Naduvannur (Via), Kozhikode - 673 614. ...Applicant
(By Advocates Mr.O.V.Radhakrishnan, Sr.
with Mrs.K.Radhamani Amma)
versus
1. Superintendent of Post Offices,
Vadakara Division, Vadakara - 673 101.
2. Postmaster General,
Northern Circle, Kozhikode - 673 612.
3. Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
4. Assistant Director General (SPN),
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Sr.PC)
-2-
This application having been heard on 12 th October 2023, the
Tribunal on 9th November 2023 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following relief :
1. To call for the records leading to Annexure A-9 Memo dated 31.05.2021 and to set aside the same to the extent it rejects the claim of the applicant for reversion as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, Nochat (Re-designated as Assistant Branch Postmaster II, Nochat) with effect from 01.06.2021.
2. To declare that the applicant who retired from service as Multi Tasking Staff, Koyilandi Head Post Office with effect from 31.05.2021 is entitled to be reverted as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, Nochat (Re-designated as Assistant Branch Postmaster II, Nochat) with effect from 01.06.2021 in terms of Annexure A-3 Government Letter dated 11.06.2020 and he is entitled to continue as Gramin Dak Sevak till he attains the age of 65 years.
3. To issue appropriate direction or order, directing the respondents to pass orders reverting the applicant as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer, Nochat (Re-designated as Assistant Branch Postmaster II, Nochat) with effect from 01.06.2021 with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances expeditiously and at any rate, within a time frame that may be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
4. To grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.-3-
and
5. To award cost to the applicant.
2. The applicant was a Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) at the Koyilandi Head Post Office under the Vadakara Postal Division. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2021. The applicant had entered into the service of the Postal Department as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) in 1981. This was later re-named as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS). The Departmental Screening Committee held on 08.07.2020 had selected him in 2020 for appointment as MTS on the basis of Selection-cum-Seniority in the vacancies of the year 2019 in Vadakara Division. Accordingly, he had been appointed vide Memo dated 15.07.2020 as 'Leave Reserve MTS' in Koyilandi Head Post Office (HPO) vide Annexure A-2. He continued in this capacity till the age of 60 years and then superannuated from service on 31.05.2021.
3. The applicant has drawn attention to letter dated 11.06.2020, produced at Annexure A-3 of the 4 th respondent, Assistant Director General (SPN) of the Department of Posts, New Delhi. The letter is addressed to the Chief Postmaster General, Karnataka Circle with copy to all Heads of Circles. The letter is in relation to requests for reversion -4- to GDS from MTS. It has been recorded that this matter had been examined and it is clarified that GDS appointed to the post of MTS on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness may be reverted to GDS cadre on own request, subject to the following conditions :
"(i) Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) of such GDS, after reversion from the post of MTS, shall be fixed at the same level of TRCA drawn by such person immediately before appointment as MTS. In other words, pay drawn in the post of MTS shall not be protected.
(ii) After reversion, such person shall be posted to the same GDS post which he/she had held immediately before appointment as MTS, if the post is still vacant. In case the same post is not vacant, he/she will have to be accommodated in any other post of GDS in the same TRCA as may be available.
(iii) After reversion from the post of MTS to GDS on own request, such person shall forfeit all rights that would have been accrued while continuing in the post of MTS.
(iv) Before approval of a request for reversion, details of TRCA and posting shall be communicated for acceptance and only after formal acceptance of the above terms and conditions orders of reversion to the post of GDS may be issued."
It is submitted by the applicant that he had joined the service as MTS mainly after taking into consideration the Annexure A-3 letter dated 11.06.2020 above, allowing officials like him to be reverted to the post of GDS, on attaining the age of superannuation in government service. -5- He had submitted a representation on 14.12.2020, requesting the authorities to revert him to his former post of GDS Mail Deliverer, Nochat. A copy of the representation submitted by him is at Annexure A-5. It indicates that the applicant had been working as an MTS with effect from 17.07.2020 at Koyilandi HPO. He states that he had seen a circular allowing willing GDS employees who were promoted as MTS, to relinquish their promotion and go back to the GDS post. In accordance with this circular, he too wanted to go back to the post of GDSMD, Nochat on reversion from the post of MTS.
4. The respondents on receipt of the request dated 14.12.2020 from the applicant at Annexure A-5 then issued Annexure A-6 (letter dated 29.01.2021 issued by the 1st respondent, Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadakara Division to the applicant). This letter repeated the same conditions which were there in the letter of the Department of Posts at Annexure A-3. The letter also indicated that the post of ABPM-II, Nochat, which he had held immediately before his appointment as MTS, was still vacant and that, in accordance with the Department of Posts letter, it was proposed to consider his request for reversion as ABPM-II, Nochat. It was also indicated that on reversion as ABPM-II, Nochat his pay drawn in the post of MTS, Koyilandi would not be protected. He -6- would forfeit all rights that would have been accrued while continuing in the post of MTS. Further, his TRCA would be fixed at Rs.14360/- in the TRCA level-2 (12000-29380) which he had been drawing immediately before appointment as MTS. Finally, it was also indicated in the letter that if these conditions are accepted, he should communicate his acceptance in the enclosed proforma immediately.
5. It is to be noted that the letter at Annexure A-6 was issued almost four months before the impending retirement of the applicant. It is submitted that within a few days of the receipt of the letter, the applicant filled up the proforma concerned vide Annexure A-7 and submitted the same to the authorities, accepting all the conditions that were mentioned in the letter. However, after that, it appears that there was no further correspondence between the applicant and the authorities until the date of his retirement. This gap is not explained by the applicant who should have been naturally anxious to get the order of reversion before his retirement. Anyway, it appears that only an order was passed allowing him to retire from service on 31.05.2021 on attaining the age of 60 years vide Annexure A-8. This was issued on the very date of retirement on 31.05.2021. Simultaneously, it is submitted that another letter, vide Annexure A-9 was also issued on him, on the same day 31.05.2021 in -7- relation to his request for reversion to GDS cadre from MTS cadre. The letter at Annexure A-9 informed the applicant that as per Directorate Letter No.W-02/2/2020 SPN-I dated 08.03.2021, the grounds for reversion of the government employee to GDS should be logical and that such requests are to be approved only in extraordinary circumstance. The letter further informed the applicant as follows : "Since no logical reason or extraordinary circumstances have been cited in the application, the competent authority has rejected your request for reversion to the cadre of GDS." A copy of this letter dated 31.05.2021 has been produced as the impugned order at Annexure A-9. Further, the letter referred to therein, dated 08.03.2021, has also been produced at Annexure A-10. The Annexure A-10 letter appears to be a letter issued on 08.03.2021 after the applicant had made his request for reversion on 14.12.2020 and after the Annexure A-6 letter from the 1 st respondent dated 29.01.2021 was received by him. It is also issued after the declaration given to him at Annexure A-7 dated 03.02.2021 was submitted.
6. This letter at Annexure A-10 thus added some further conditions/guidelines to the letter at Annexure A-3 in relation to requests for reversion to GDS from the post of MTS/Postman/Mail Guard/PA/SA -8- etc. The guidelines indicated that the GDS, who have been appointed to these posts, will have to make a written request for reversion to GDS cadre. The request should also be made within one year from the date of appointment to the aforesaid posts in the regular establishment. The conditions in relation to TRCA which existed in the letter at Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-3 was repeated as was the condition in relation to the post of GDS which had been held before the appointment in the regular establishment. Further, the condition in relation to forfeiting of rights that have been accrued while continuing in the posts in the regular establishment was also included. In addition, the condition in relation to accepting the terms and conditions in relation to request for reversion was also retained. The only new condition, in addition to the condition in relation to making a written request as well as the request being made within a year from the date of appointment to the post in the regular establishment was that the order for reversion would be issued by appointing authority after taking approval of the Head of the Circle. This ground was at point (viii) of the letter at Annexure A-10 and it stated as follows :
"(viii). The ground for reversion to GDS should be logical. Only in extraordinary circumstances, cases of reversion will be approved. The HOC will have discretion in this regard."
-9-
7. The applicant submits that it appears from the Annexure A-9 impugned letter that his request for reversion to the post of GDS was rejected largely based on point (viii) of Annexure A-10 as the said Annexure A-9 letter has quoted that the grounds for reversion to GDS should be logical and such requests are to be approved only in extraordinary circumstances. It is further stated in the letter that since no logical reason or extraordinary circumstances have been cited in the application, the competent authority has rejected his request for reversion to the cadre of GDS. The applicant submits that this stand of the respondents is illegal and unreasonable for the reason that all the conditions enumerated in Annexure A-3 letter dated 11.06.2020 and even the Annexure A-10 letter dated 08.03.2021 are fulfilled in his case. He had submitted a written request for reversion within one year from the date of appointment as MTS on 15.07.2020. He had also in compliance with the Annexure A-6 Memo communicated Annexure A-7 Declaration dated 03.02.2021 agreeing that on reversion his pay drawn in the post of MTS, Koyilandi shall not be protected and that he shall forfeit all rights that would have been accrued by continuing in the post of MTS. He had also agreed to fixing his TRCA at Rs.14360/- in TRCA level-2 (12000- 29380) which he was drawing immediately before appointment as MTS. The applicant submits that he knew even while taking up the post of -10- MTS that he would have had only around 10 months and 15 days service as MTS. He had joined the post based on the assurance provided by Annexure A-3 dated 11.06.2020 in the conditions therein that he could be reverted to the post of GDS, on attaining the age of superannuation. He had accepted the promotion as MTS only because of Annexure A-3, as otherwise he could have continued in the post of GDS. Hence, the stand of the respondents that his reversion from the post of MTS to GDS is not logical and no extraordinary circumstances have been cited in his application is unreasonable, arbitrary and not legally tenable.
8. The applicant also points out that his application for reversion had been submitted on 14.12.2020, whereas the Annexure A-10 instructions were issued only on 08.03.2021. It is submitted that the same cannot be taken to have any retrospective effect. It is illogical that a condition prescribed on 08.03.2021 is being insisted for compliance after his application was made on 14.12.2020, prior to 08.03.2021. Hence, the Annexure A-9 order rejecting his application for reversion should be struck down on this ground as well. The main grounds that the applicant has put forth is brought out at ground (E) of the O.A. The applicant has pointed out that the minimum age limit for employment as GDS is 18 years. Further, the maximum age upto which a GDS can be retained in -11- service is 65 years. However, regular employees of the Postal Department have to retire at the age of 60 years. He has now retired from the post of MTS on attaining the age of superannuation at 60. Thus, if he had been reverted to the post of GDS as per his application, he could have continued till the age of 65 years as GDS at Nochat. In other words, his right to continue as GDS till he attained the age of 65 years has been deprived arbitrarily consequent on the rejection of his request for reversion to which he is entitled to. As such, it is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
9. The respondents have filed a reply statement. At the outset they have accepted that the applicant was appointed in the post of MTS on the basis of selection-cum-seniority. He was posted at Koyilandi H.P.O with effect from 16.07.2020. It is accepted that he had submitted a request vide Annexure A-5 for reversion to the post of GDS, which had been earlier held by him prior to his appointment as MTS. His case was being processed on the basis of the Postal Directorate letter dated 11.06.2020 produced at Annexure A-3. It is submitted that the details in relation to his last drawn TRCA etc., were being collected. However, in the meantime, fresh guidelines to be followed for deciding the requests for reversion to the GDS cadre, after being appointed to the post of -12- MTS/Postman/Mail Guard/PA/SA were issued vide Department of Posts, Headquarters letter dated 08.03.2021, produced by the applicant at Annexure A-10. It is submitted that as per point (vii) of the guidelines, an order for reversion will be issued only by the appointing authority after taking approval of the Head of the Circle. The case for reversion of the applicant to the post of GDS was accordingly considered by the 3 rd respondent, the Head of Kerala Postal Circle in the light of these guidelines. The 3rd respondent (who is the competent authority) had rejected the request of the applicant for reversion to the GDS cadre citing the reasons that no logical reason or extraordinary circumstances had been cited in the application. This decision of the 3 rd respondent was then communicated to the applicant vide Annexure A-9 letter. Thus, consequent upon rejection of the application for reversion to GDS post, the applicant had been permitted to retire from service on 31.05.2021 afternoon on attaining 60 years.
10. It is submitted by the respondents that the Annexure A-3 letter dated 11.06.2020 did not contain comprehensive guidelines for deciding the applications for reversion to GDS posts. It was only in the nature of a reply to a query raised by the Karnataka Postal Circle, though copies were marked to all Heads of Circle. Further, Annexure A-3, in any case, -13- does not imply that all requests for reversion preferred by GDS should be invariably acceded to. It is submitted that the detailed instructions to decide on such reversions was finalised by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, only in the letter dated 08.03.2021, produced at Annexure A-10. This letter was directly addressed to the Chief Postmaster General of All Postal Circles. It is submitted that the earlier letter dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure A-3) contained no instructions in relation to the time limit for application for reversion to the post of GDS and who would be the competent authority to approve the reversion etc.
11. It is further submitted by the respondents that the applicant had had only 10 months and 15 days of service as MTS. This was clear when he joined as MTS Koyilandi HO on 16.07.2020 as his date of birth was 04.05.1961 and thus the date of attaining superannuation was 31.05.2021. It is evident from his contentions that, while joining as MTS, he had some plans to continue as MTS till superannuation and then to seek reversion to GDS, in order to get another five years as the age of discharge is 65 years for GDS. The respondents submit that the Annexure A-3 letter does not contain details regarding how to entertain the applications for reversion. Nor (as has been mentioned earlier) were -14- the authority competent to approve the application, the grounds for application etc., indicated. Further, Annexure A-3 did not envisage acceding to requests for reversion in an invariable manner. The representation of the applicant vide Annexure A-5 dated 14.12.2020 had been received and was forwarded to the competent authority in view of the instructions contained in the Department of Posts letter dated 08.03.2021 at Annexure A-10 received by that time, along with the declaration of the applicant at Annexure A-7. This was, however, rejected by the office of the 3rd respondent on the ground that no logical reasons or extraordinary circumstances had been cited in the application/representation. Hence, accordingly, Annexure A-8 order was issued permitting the applicant to retire from service on 31.05.2021 on attaining 60 years of age.
12. It is reiterated by the respondents that neither the Annexure A-3 letter nor the Annexure A-10 letter has any provision to accede to the request for transfer invariably. In fact, the guidelines at Annexure A-10 clearly provide that the Head of Circle has to approve the order of reversion. Further, they provide that the ground of reversion should be logical and that only in extraordinary circumstances, would cases of reversion be approved. The 3rd respondent had rejected the request of the -15- applicant as no such logical reasons or extraordinary circumstances had been cited in the application. Further, the averment of the applicant that he had joined the post of MTS based on the conditions and assurances in Annexure A-3 ie., that he would be reverted to the post of GDS on attaining the age of superannuation, has to be taken as wrong and a misinterpretation of the Annexure A-3 instructions. Annexure A-3 is clear and has not given any blanket approval or any assurance in all such cases. It is also beyond logic, as per the respondents, that a person would ever join a higher post with a predetermined notion about reversion on a later date. The applicant had the liberty not to accept his selection as MTS and to continue as GDS. Instead he chose to join as MTS with some plan to seek reversion at the time of superannuation. Since the basic policy contained in Annexure A-3 has not been changed in Annexure A-10, the decision of competent authority to reject the application was strictly in accordance with the Annexure A-3.
13. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant could have cited genuine reasons, if any, for claiming reversion. Instead, he simply referred to the Annexure A-3 letter and claimed reversion to GDS post as his right. Further, even at this later stage, the applicant has still not been able to put forward any genuine and convincing reasons to press his -16- claim for reversion. Hence, in view of all the above factors the Annexure A-9 Memo was issued to him conveying the rejection of his application by the competent authority and there is no error involved. It is further submitted in relation to the Ground (E) brought out by the applicant in the O.A., that any right which the applicant had to continue till attaining the age of 65 years as GDS ceased once he had been appointed to the post of MTS. The applicant had accepted the appointment of MTS on 16.07.2020. From that date it was clear that his retirement on superannuation was to be on attaining the age of 60 years, as stipulated in FR 56 applicable to Central Government employees. Hence, it is submitted that the respondents cannot be put to blame for a wrong interpretation of the rules by the applicant. Annexure A-3 was clear and it never gave a blanket approval nor an assurance in all such cases. It is beyond logic as mentioned earlier that someone would ever join a higher post on a predetermined notion about reversion on a later date. The applicant had been at liberty not to accept his selection to the post of MTS and continue as GDS. Instead, he had chosen to join as MTS with a plan to seek reversion at the time of superannuation. Hence, in view of the above considerations, the relief asked for by the applicant deserved to be rejected.
-17-
14. In continuation to the above, both the applicant and the respondents later filed a rejoinder and an additional reply statement respectively. Not many additional reasons have been brought forth by the applicant in the rejoinder filed by him. The rejoinder appears to have been filed mainly on the basis of a mistaken notion or ignorance on the part of the applicant that the Point No.(viii) did not actually appear in the Annexure A-10 letter. The only additional point, if at all, in the rejoinder was that no definite or precise meaning has been given to the condition that there has to be a 'logical' ground for reversion. Further, neither have the so called 'extraordinary circumstances' been identified. Since Heads of the Circles can exercise such powers in defined circumstances only, it is contended that it is arbitrary that such sweeping powers are given to Heads of the Circles, when there are no statutory rules or binding executive orders or guidelines. There are no reasons given for the rejection of approval by the Head of the Circle for the reversion applied for by the applicant. Thus, it is not based upon any reasonable or valid ground. Any such decision of the competent authority in the matter of granting or not granting approval for reversion must be a determination which takes into consideration all factors relevant for determination. Further, if the authority has taken into account factors which he has no right to take into -18- account, then such determination cannot be considered correct. Hence, it follows that the reason for rejecting approval for reversion was ex-facie incongruous, unreasonable and one taken on the basis of irrelevant considerations.
15. The respondents in their additional reply statement have, however, pointed out that point (viii) of Annexure A-10, states that 'the ground for reversion to GDS should be logical. Only in extraordinary circumstances, cases of reversion would be approved.....' It appears that the applicant was trying to mislead the Tribunal by saying that this condition was not included in the Annexure A-10 guidelines. The applicant, having accepted the promotion to the post of MTS from GDS on the basis of selection-cum-seniority for the vacancy for the year 2019 and having joined the post of MTS at Koyilandi HPO on 16.07.2020, had blocked the promotion opportunity in the list for the next eligible GDS in the line of promotion. He was at liberty not to accept the selection as MTS and to continue as GDS but, instead, he chose to join as MTS with plans to seek reversion at the time of superannuation. It is evident that Annexure A-10 order has been issued as a solace to officials who had opted for promotion but were unable to work in the promotional post due to extraordinary -19- circumstances. The Head of the Circle, who is the 3 rd respondent herein, has discretionary powers in this regard as per point (viii) of Annexure A-10 and, as such, a decision has been taken by him. This decision of the 3rd respondent is justified and legally warranted and not arbitrary. The respondents have acted only as per law. The Annexure A-5 representation of the applicant was found to be devoid of reasons, incongruous, unreasonable and thus the same was rejected since there were no logical reasons or extraordinary circumstances brought out.
16. We have carefully gone through all these contentions and we have a few observations to make at the outset. We note that the fact is that the applicant had applied and accepted his promotion/appointment to the post of MTS with open eyes. He had joined the post on 16.07.2020, knowing fully well that his date of birth was 04.05.1961 and that he would be superannuating in only 10 months and 15 days on 31.05.2021. It cannot be the case that a person who has worked for so many years as GDS in a highly literate State like Kerala would not have been aware of this situation when he joined the post. He had been continuing as GDS, Nochat before that and would have been well aware that as GDS that he would be able to continue in the post till the age of 65. Further, he would also have been quite aware, even if he accepted the post of MTS, since -20- his regular service was only for a period of 10 months and 15 days, his gain in terms of regular service in relation to salary or retirement benefits etc.,, if any, would be very limited.
17. However, whatever be his motivations, the applicant had accepted his appointment as MTS and joined the post. He has emphasized that he was under the bonafide impression that he would be able to revert back easily to GDS in line with the instructions at Annexure A-3 dated 11.06.2020, which ruled the field at that time. This impression cannot be discounted as exaggerated as it is also a fact that when he made his application at Annexure A-5 on 14.12.2020, the letter was positively acknowledged by the respondent at Annexure A-6. This letter did contain material and instructions that would give a fair amount of hope that he would be reverted. The declaration at Annexure A-7 submitted by him as per a proforma prepared by the respondents also provided for a genuine expectation that he would be reverted. We note that all these documents, at Annexure A-5, Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-7, had been exchanged before the Annexure A-10 guidelines dated 08.03.2021 were issued. To that extent, we do observe that the respondents should have taken a positive view of his request for reversion, as at that time there were no further conditions in the guidelines, especially no -21- condition that the ground for reversion should be logical and that only in extraordinary circumstances would cases of reversion be approved. Such a condition was not mentioned in the Annexure A-6 letter issued to him on 29.01.2021, which, on the other hand, almost assured him fully that his case was being considered positively. All that he was requested to do was to fill up the declaration at Annexure A-7 and submit the same. As noted, this declaration was a proforma declaration and never had any point in which the reasons for reversion or any extraordinary circumstances in which it is being asked for, had to be indicated by the applicant/the employee filling up the same.
18. Given this factual position and matrix, we deem it fairly arbitrary to suddenly turn around and state in the letter at Annexure A-9, that too received on the very day of retirement from service, that since the applicant had not given any logical ground for reversion, his request is being rejected. In fact soon after the Annexure A-10 letter containing the new guidelines was received by the Chief Postmaster General of Kerala, it was incumbent on the respondents to inform the applicant that in continuation of his declaration at Annexure A-7 as well as in continuation of their own letter at Annexure A-6, to clearly specify under what reasons and circumstances the reversion to GDS was being asked -22- for. However, this was not done. Further, being a low level employee the applicant may not have been fully aware of the implication of the new Annexure A-10 guidelines. To that extent the respondents should have taken care of his interest. It would not be fair nor in the interest of natural justice, that this opportunity was given a go-by and is being now held against the applicant, as is evident from the Annexure A-9 letter. Further, we also note that it is not a good practice for a government department, as a model employer, to reject pending requests made by an employee as late as his last day of service. From indications provided by the learned counsel for the applicant during hearing, the applicant had been having a good record as a delivery staff. This was also evidenced by a letter of appreciation dated 28.07.2007 issued to him by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadakara Division. Learned counsel has also brought to notice that there are still sufficient posts in the Vadakara Division at the level of GDS for him to be reverted to.
19. In sum, we find, therefore, that a technical ground has been used for rejection of the applicant's request, which was issued subsequent to positive processing being done for reversion vide Annexure A-6 and Annexure A-7. As we noted, this step is fairly arbitrary and also, as pointed out earlier, not in accordance with the principles of natural -23- justice which are fundamental in such matters. Hence, in view of these considerations, we are setting aside the impugned order issued by the respondents at Annexure A-9. We find that the applicant was entitled to be considered for reversion as GDS MD at Nochat. The respondents may issue appropriate orders posting the applicant to the post of GDS, Nochat if still available and if not, at any adjoining or nearby post by allowing the reversion of the applicant to the post of GDS with the benefit of appropriate pay etc., as allowed under the rules. However, the said reversion will only be effective from the date that he will join the said post and benefits may be given accordingly.
20. It is also clarified that we are not directing the respondents to issue any orders with effect from 01.06.2021. The above orders will apply in the case of the applicant only with effect from the date that he joins the post. He will then continue to serve under the rules pertaining to service as GDS until such time as allowed by the rules. In other words, no orders in relation to the period between 01.06.2021 till the date that the applicant rejoins as GDS need be passed. His period of service as GDS would start from the date when he joins the same. Further, all steps in this regard may be completed within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-24-
21. The O.A is disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 9th day of November, 2023)
K.V.EAPEN JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp
-25-
List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00490/2021
1. Annexure A-1 - A copy of the Memo No.B2/59/MTS 2019 dated 14.07.2020 of the 1st respondent.
2. Annexure A-2 - A copy of the Memo No.H2/MTS/KDI dated 15.07.2020 of the Postmaster, Koyilandi HPO.
3. Annexure A-3 - A copy of the Letter dated 11.06.2020 of the 4 th respondent.
4. Annexure A-4 - A copy of the Memo No.Rectt/13-2/RLGs dated 17.06.2020 of the Assistant Director (Estt. & Rect.)
5. Annexure A-5 - A copy of the Representation dated 14.12.2020 of the applicant to the 1st respondent with English translation.
6. Annexure A-6 - A copy of the Memo No.B3/157/Dlg dated 29.01.2021 of the 1st respondent.
7. Annexure A-7 - A copy of the Declaration dated 03.02.2021.
8. Annexure A-8 - A copy of the Memo No.B2/49 dated 31.05.2021 of the 1st respondent.
9. Annexure A-9 - A copy of the Memo No.B3/157/dlg dated 31.05.2021 of the 1st respondent.
10. Annexure A-10 - A copy of the Directorate Letter No.W-02/2/2020 SPN-I dated 08.03.2021 of the 4th respondent.
_______________________________