Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
L Elizabeth vs D/O Post on 21 December, 2023
1 OA 1890/2016 # Bateh CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL i CHENNAI BENCH OA NO.1890/2016 & Dated Thursday, the 21" day of December, Two Thousand Twenty Three CORUM: HON'BLE MS, LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON'BLE MR.VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER(A) OA 1890/2016 1. D.Arivudainambi, S/o.Duraikannan, 2/7/44, South Mooppanar Street, Ramanathapuram Post, Thanjavur-613 004. 2. M.Senthilkumar, Slo.Marimuthu, 3122, North Street, Nanjikottai, Thanjavur-613 006. 3 S.Senthilkumar, S/o.D.Sekar, 234, Pillalyar Koil Street, Reddypalayam,Vallam Post, Thanjavur District,PIN -613 403. 4, R.karthikeyan, S/o.Rajasekaran, No.1629, Krishnan Koil, Rajaveethi, Manambuchavadi, Thanjavur-613 O01. 5. S.Selvam, S/o.S.Srinivasan, No.1121/9, Ayyamperumail Kothan Street, Manambuchavadi,Thanjavur-613 001. 6. S.Selvakumar, S/o.Selvaraj, 1/70, Nadar Street, Thulukkanpatti, Inathukhanpatti Post, Thanjavur-613 605, nud 7. S.Subramanian, S/o.Sami Ayyah, No.79, East Bank, Sevappan Nayakkanvari, Thanjavur-613 009. 8. R.,Chandrasekaran, S/o.S.Ramalingam, Moola Anjaneyar Kovil Street, Melaveethi, Thirukattupalli-613 104. 9. A.Venugopal, S/o.V.Adaikalam, No.39, Pookkara 2hd Street, Thanjavur-620 613. 10. N.Shanmugavel, S/o.Nagarajan, 5A, Arulananthapuram, Medical College Road, Thanjavur-613 007. 11.M.Gurunathan, S/o.Murugaiah Devar, No.2377, Krishnaraya Lane, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Thanjavur-613 009, 12,D.Bragadeeswaran, S/o.C.Duraisamy, No.63/1, Raja Nagar, North Street, Tiruvaiyar-613 204. 13.S.Sasikumar, S/o.R.Sadasivam, No.1110-A, Melatheru, Manalmedu,Koodalur Post, Vennar Bank via, Thanjavur-613 003. By Advocate M/s R.Malaichamy Vs. 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts, Sansad Marg, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi- 110 001. OA 1890/2016 & Bateh . Applicants ns te 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur- 613 001, By Advocate Mr. R.S.Krishnaswamy 0.A.No0.27/2017 1. A. Balaji, $/o.J.Anbukkarasan, No.201, Annai Sathya Nagar, 10" Street, Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106. 2. C.Munusamy, S/o.Chandhiran, No. 230, C-Kalyanapuram Vyasarpadi,Chennai-600 039, 3, S.Narayanan, $/o.P.Swamykannu, No.165B, Baskar Colony, Saligramam,Chennal-600 093. 4. j.Venkatesh, S/o.C.Jayamurthi, No.40, Karthik nagar, New TTC Nagar, Guduvancherry, Chennai-603 202. 5. A.Panchatcharam, S/o.C.Arumugam, No.2/63, 2" Street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Korukkupettal, Chennai-600 021. .. Applicants OA 1890/2016 2Ratn, . .Respondents 4 OA 1890/2016 &s Bale By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy -Vs- 1. Union of India, Rep, by the Assistant Director General (GDS), Ministry of Communications & LT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, "os New Delhi - 110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Road,Chennai - 600 002. 3, The Deputy Director, Foreign Posts, Chennai - 600 001. ... Respondents By Advocate Mr.J.Vasu OA No. 303/2017 G.j.Lourdusamy, S/o.G.Jayaraj, No.1/94, Main Road, Manampathy Kandigai B.O., Manampathy S.O.,, Kanchipuram District .. Applicant By Advocate M/s R.Malaichamy -Vs- 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. 2. The Postmaster General, Chennai City Region, Chennai-600 002. 3 OA 1890/2016 & Batch 3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanchipuram Division, Kanchipuram - 631 501. 4. Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Kanchipuram Sub-Division, Kanchipuram-631 501. ... Respondents By Advocate Mr.M.Kishore Kumar OA 642/2017 C.Govindasamy, S/o.R.Chidambaram, No,.2147, Krishnappa Street, Chepauk, Chennai-600 005. (Gardener, Triplicane Post Office) .. Applicant By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy - V5 - Union of India, Rep. by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City Central Division, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 O17. .. Respondent By Advocate Mrs.Shakila Anand a OA 1079/2017 G.Nagarajan, S/o.P.Gopal, No.122, Anna Street, Renderipet Village,R.Kunnathur Post, Polur Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, PIN - 606 803. (GDS outsider) By Advocate M/ s.R.Malaichamy - Vs ~ Union of India, Rep, by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruvannamalai Diviston, Tiruvannamalai - 606 601. By Advocate Mr.J.Vasu OA 1080/2017 M Rajamohammed (lM) , S/o.K. Mohammed Abubakkar No.5, EB Colony, Rotary Village, Pykara, Madurai - 625 004 (GDS Outsider) By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy ... Applicants OA 1890/2016 & Batch .. Applicant .. Respondent - o -V/s- 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Assistant Director General (GDS), Ministry of Communications & LT., Department of Posts,Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,New Delhi - 110 001, 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Road, Chennai - 600 002. 3. The Deputy Director, Foreign Posts, Chennai - 600 001. ... Respondents By Advocate MrJ.Vasu OA 1230/2017 & OA 350/2018 N.Dharmarajan, GDS MD Chathanvilai, Ammandivilai Post, Kanniyakumart District. .. Applicant By Advocate Mr.S.Retnaswamy -Vs- 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle,Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002, 2, The Inspector of Posts, Nagercoil, West Sub-Division, Nagercoil 629 001. ... Respondent By Advocate Mr.S.Nagarajan (OA 3500/2018) Mrs.Shakila Anand (OA 1230/2017) OA 1890/2016 &Bainh OA 668/2019 i. B.Selvam, 2. A.Inbaraj, 3. K.Thirumal, 4. K.Ekambaram, 5. K.Omavalli, 6. N.Moorthi, 7. S,Manoranjani, 8. V.Sundaravel, 9, M.Pandi Meena, 10. R.Venkatesh, 11. PSagayaraj, 12. K.Karthick, 13. RReginamary, 14. S.Murugesan, 16. G.S.Lakshmanan @ Lakshmi Narayanan, 17. RBShanmugam, 18. N.Shanmuganathan, 19, S.Murugan, 20. V.Arumugam, 21, A.Baskaran, 22. S.Thiyagarajan, 23. S.Felix Antoni, 24, S.Siva, 25. R.Devados, 26. S.Kalaikumar, 27, P.Devi, 28. M.Murugavel, 29, N.Prakash, 30. M.Nagarajan, 31. R.Ravi, 32, B.Jayakumar, 33. M.Dhavamani, 34. D.Gunasekaran, 35. PMohanasundaram, 36, S.Sekar, OA 1890/2016 2Bakeh f 37, C.Rasu, 38, R.Sundarambal, 39. G.Muthupandi, 40, P.Kathirvel, 41. S.Manikandan, 42, S.Kalaiarasi. By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy - Vs o 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications and I.T., Dak Bhavan,Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001. 2. Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002. 3, The Assistant Director General-GDS), Ministry of Communications & L.T., Department of Posts (GDS Section), Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-i10 001 By Advocate Mr.S.Nagarajan OA 669/2019 1. L.Elizabeth, 2. E.Thulukkanam, 3. A.Manikandan, 4, M.Venkitapathy, 5. M.Lyla Christal, 6. M.Purushothaman, 7. S.V.Shalin, 8. I.Naseeka @ Naseeka Begum, OA 1890/2016 &/Balth . Applicants = ... Respondents 10 9. G.Sathishkumar, 10. J.Alex, 11. N.John Bright, 12. R.Vijayalakshmi, i3. R.Vincent Raj, 14. A.Radhakrishnan, 15. PR.Rangan, 16, M.Arumugam, 17. S.Karthik, 18. V.M.Udhaya Kumar, 19, K.Dhanakodi, 20, E.Parvin, 21. S.Sabithavathi, 22. S.Subbiah, 23. K.Thiyagarajan, 24, S.Santhanam, 25. S.Golda Mayar, 26. $.Semblyan, 27. N.Vanitha, 28. P.Muthuraij, 29. T.Gnanaraj, 30. K.Balasubramanian, 31, K.M.Palanisamy, 32. L.Arjunan, 33. N.Murugesh, 34, S.A.Vazalullah, 35. R.Velmurugan, 36. P.Ramesh, 37. R.Duraimurugan, 38. S.M.Sheik Gnaniyar, 39, D.Selva Murugan, 40. S.Muthuselvan, 41, C.Thirunavukarasu, 42, R.Sudha, 43, C,.Ramadoss, 44, V.Sivakumar, 45. R.Ramesh, 46. S.Chellam, OA 1890/2016 9- Baten fo 1 47. V.P.Arumugam, 48, M.Thanasekaran, 49. P.Prabu, 50. V.M.Senthil Raja, 51. R.Vijayakumar, 52. K.Mohanasundaram By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy - Vs - 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications and 1.T,, Dak Bhavan,Sansad Marg, New Deihi-110 001. 2. Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 3. The Assistant Director General-GDS), Ministry of Communications & I.T,, Department of Posts (GDS Section), Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001 By Advocate Mr.Su.Srinivasan OA 8857/2019 S.Santhosh Kumar, S/o.K.Selvam, No,1/44C, Thattar Street, Ayilam BO a/w Melvisharam, Vellore - 632 509. By Advocate M/s.R.Majaichamy OA 1890/2016 &Baleh ... Applicants ... Respondents ... Applicant < 12 OA 1890/2016 # Bale, -Vs- 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pensions and Pensioners Welfare, 3 rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi - £10 903. we 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110 001. gk 3. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. 4. The Assistant Director (Staff) O/o. the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle,Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002. 5. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Arakkonam Division,Arakkonam- 631 001. 6. The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, Central Secretariat, Rajpath Marg, New Delhi- 110011. ... Respondents By Advocate Mrs.Shakila Anand OA 1075/2019 P,Marimuthu, S/o.K.Ponnan, 3/143, 2, West Meenatchinayakanpatti, Dindigu! District,PIN - 624 002. (GDS Outsider, Collectorate SO) ... Applicant 13 OA 1890/2016 #Rateh By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy -Vs- 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Assistant Director General (GDS), Ministry of Communications & I.T, Department of Posts, (GDS Section), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110 001. 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul - 624 001. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr.R.S.Krishnaswamy OA 1207/2019 D.Arunachalam, S/o. R.Duratraj, No.60C, Siva Street,Tirunelveli Town, Tirunelveli - 627 006.(GDS outsider) ». Applicant By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy - Vs . 1) Union of India, Rep, by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli - 627 002. 2) The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Palayankottai Sub-Division,Palayankottai - 627 002, 3) The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirunelveli Sub-Dtvision, Tirunelveli- 627 002, ... Respondents By Advocate Mr.S.Nagarajan 14 OA 4117/2020 wan num RW Nh Ww www wWwowon NN NN NN NNN BP FP FF FP EF FP eK Re "nau bOWON FP Ow WAN THON BRBWNY PP TO WON DOF WN HR OS . L.Elizabeth, . E.Thulukkanam, . A.Manikandan, . M.Venkitapathy, . M.Lyla Christal, . M.Purushothaman, . S.VShalin, . LNaseeka @ Naseeka Begum, . G.Sathishkumar, . Alex, . N.John Bright, . R.Vijayalakshmi, . R.Vincent Raj, . A.Radhakrishnan, . P,Rangan, . MArumugam, . §.Karthik, . V.M.Udhaya Kumar, . K. Dhanakodi, . E.Parvin, . §.Sabithavathi, . §.Subbiah, . K.Thiyagarajan, . S.Santhanam, . §.Golda Mayar, : S.Sembiyan, . N.Vanitha, . P.Muthuraj, . T.Gnanaraj, . K.Balasubramanian, . K.M,Palanisamy, . L.Arjunan, . N.Murugesh, _ 5,A,Vazalullah, . R.Velmurugan, . P.Ramesh, . R.Buraimurugan, OA 1890/2016 BBalth 38. 39, 40, 41. 42. 43. 44, 45. 46, 47, 48. 49, 50. Si. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56, a7. 58. 59. 60. 61, 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. S.M.Sheik Gnaniyar, D.Selva Murugan, S.Muthuselvan, C.Thirunavukarasu, R.Sudha, V.Sivakumar, R.Ramesh, S.Chellam, V.PArumugam, M.Thanasekaran, P,Prabu, V.M.Senthil Raja, R.Vijayakumar, K.Mohanasundaram, B.Selvam, A. Inbaraj, K.Thirumal, K.Ekambaram, K.Omavalli, N.Moorthi, S.Manoranjani, V.Sundaravel, M.Pandi Meena, R.Venkatesh, P,Sagayaraj, K.Karthick, P.Reginamary, 5.Murugesan, R,Ganesan, G.S.Lakshmanan @ Lakshmi Narayanan, 68, 69. 70. 71. P,Shanmugam, N.Shanmuganathan, S.Murugan, V.Arumugam, 72, A,Baskaran, 73.8.Thiyagarajan, 74, S.Pelix Antoni, 15 OA 1890/2016 & Bateh 75. 5.Siva, 76. R.Devados, 77, S.Kalalkumar, 78. P.Devi, 79, M.Murugavel, 80. N.Prakash, 81. M.Nagarajan, 82. R.Ravi, 83, BJayakumar, 84. M.Dhavamani, 85. D.Gunasekaran, 86. PR.Mohanasundaram, 87. S.Sekar, 88. C.Rasu, 89. R.Sundarambal, 90. G.Muthupandl, 91. P.Kathirvel, 92. S.Manikandan, 93. S.Kalaiarasi By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy - Vs - 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications and I.T., Dak Bhavan,Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001. 2. The Assistant Director General-GDS)}, Ministry of Communications & LT., Department of Posts (GDS Section), Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110 001 3. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai,Chennai - 600 002 By Advocate Mr.Su.Srinivasan OA 1890/2016 & Batch .. Applicants ... Respondents 17 OA 1890/2016 &Baléh ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The issues involved in ail the OAs and the reliefs sought for in all the OAs are similar. Hence, these applications are heard together and disposed a of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, OA 1890/2016 is taken as the lead case,
2. The applicants have filed this OA under Section 19 of the' Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
"OA 1890/2016To direct the Respondents to absorb the Applicants as GDS on considering their long years of service as Outsiders/Substitutes GDS; and To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.OA 27/2017
i) To call for the records of the 1st Respondent pertaining to his order which is made in No.17-39/4/2012-GDS dated 14.01.2015 in so far as it relates to fixing cut off date as 01.09.1993 and the order of 3rd Respondent Memo No.FP/STA/OA-787/2015 dated 14.12.2016 and set aside the same; consequent a to, ii} direct the Respondents to absorb the Applicants as GDS with all service benefits; and, OA 303/2017
1. To call for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to his proceedings made in No,82/CAT/2016 dated 07.12.2016 and set aside the same;
consequent to, 2, direct the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment in the case of Suguna and others to the applicant and absorb him as GDS in any one of the vacant post on considering his long years of service rendered on provisional basis as well as an outsider for about 26 years; and OA 642/2017
1. To call for the records of the respondent pertaining to his order made in No:
B4/GDS/Dlgs dated 14.01.2016 and set aside the same, consequent to;
2, direct the respondent to absorb the applicant on regular basis as Gardener or as MTS or in any other cadre such as GDS on considering the long years of service rendered by the applicant [.e,, nearly about 31 years by giving relaxation in age, educational qualification etc., with all service benefits; and a, 18 OA 1890/2016 Balel OA 1079/2017
1. To call for the records of the respondent pertaining to his order which is made in No.B3/Misc-POU/Digs dated 30.03.2017 and set aside the same, consequent to;
2. direct the respondent to absorb the applicant as GDS on considering his long years of service as outsiders/substitutes GDS; and OA 1080/2017
i) To call for the records of the 1 st Respondent pertaining to his order which is made in No.17-39/4/2012-GDS dated 14.01.2015 in so far as it relates to fixing cut off date as 01.09.1993 and the order of 3rd Respondent No.BIl/GDS/Misc/Dlges dated 25.07.2016 and set aside the same; consequent to, ii} direct the Respondents to absorb the Applicant as GDS with all service benefits; and, OA 1230/2017 {i)To set aside the If Respondent's order dated 30.09.2016 and to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on regular basis as GDS (MD) In the respondents' office.OA 350/2018
To set aside the Il Respondent's order No.IP(W)/Misc/Dlgs dated at Nagercoil 1, the 01.02.2018 and direct the Respondents to appoint the applicant as GDS (MD) Outsider against any one of the vacancies in Kanyakumari District in the respondents' office.
OA 668/20191. To call for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to his instruction/order which is made in No.17-39/4/2012-GDS dated 14.01.2015 in so far as the condition of cut off date 01.09.1993 prescribed for absorption as GDS is concerned and set aside the same, consequent to;
2. direct the respondents to absorb the applicants as GDS against vacant posts in the light of the instructions issued by the Postal Directorate made in G.I. Dept. of Posts, Lr.No.65-24/88-SPB.1, dated the 17th May 1989 and instructions made in D.G., Posts, Letter No.17-141/88-EDC & Trg., dated 06,.06,1988; or
3. direct the respondents to absorb the applicants by framing a scheme as done in the earlier occasions as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal made in O0.A.No.811 of 1988, and;
OA 669/20191. To call for the records of the 3rd respondent pertaining to his instruction/order which ts made in No.17-39/4/2012-GDS dated 14.01.2015 in so far as the condition of cut off date 01.09.1993 prescribed for absorption as GDS is concerned and set aside the same, consequent to;
2. direct the respondents to absorb the applicants as GDS against vacant posts in the light of the instructions issued by the Postal Directorate made in G.I. Dept. of Posts, Lr.No.65-24/88-SPB.I, dated the 17th May 1989 and instructions made in D.G., Posts, Letter No.17-141/88-EDC & Trg., dated 06.06.1988; or
3. direct the respondents to absorb the applicants by framing a scheme as done in the earlier occasions as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal nm )
3. 19 OA 1890/2016 & Bate made in 0.A.No.811 of 1988, OA 857/2019
i) To call for the records of the 5th respondent pertaining to his order which is made in No.B3/Misc/04/2018-19/digs dated 18.01.19 and the order of 4 th respondent made in No.STB/GDS/Misc digs/2016/CCR dated 09.04.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
ii) direct the respondents 2 to 5 to provide reservation for Ex-serviceman/ward of Ex-serviceman in GDS appointments as in the case of EWS, SC/ST, OBC, PH, etc., and thereby to,
iii) direct the respondents 2 to 5 to absorb the applicant as GDS on considering the long years of service rendered by him as well as in the capacity of the ward of Ex-serviceman; and, OA 1075/2019
1. To call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to his letter made in No,17-39/4/2012-GDS dated 14.01.2015 in so far as it concerned with the cutoff date as 01.09.1993 and also call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his order made in No.BIl/Misc./Dlgs dated 03/06,.02.2017 and set aside the same; consequent to, "2, direct the respondents to absorb the applicant as GDS with all attendant benefits OA 1207/2019
i) To call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his e-mail instructions dated 22.10.2018 blacklisting the applicant from engaging him in any leave/vacant places in any office under his Sub-Division and also the order of the Ist respondent made in No.B2/04762/2019 dated 31.07.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
ii} direct the respondents to re-engage the applicant as GDS outsider and thereafter to regularize the service of the applicant as GDS by extending the benefit of judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal made in the case of Irudhayaraj and others, and OA 417/2020
i) To call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his order made in BOP's OM NO, 17-31/2016 - GDS dated 30.10.2019 and set aside the same in so far as denying absorption as GDS to Casual Labourers; consequent to
ii) direct the respondents to keep vacant about 96 posts of GDS BPM/GDS A8PM for the applicants and further direct the respondents not to finalize the selections and appointment to the post of GDS BPM/GDS ABPM in Tamil Nadu Circle for which notification made in STC/12-GDS ONLINE/2020 dated 01.09.2020 by the 3rd respondent"
The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants, in a nutshell, are as under:
Pay In OA 1890/2016, the 1* Applicant completed more than 25 years of service 20 OA 1890/2016 2 Pakeh as GDS outsider. The 2" Applicant rendered service for about 9 years and 13" Applicant rendered service for about 7 years. Other Applicants rendered more than 10 years of service. They ail are married and are working as Substitutes/Outsiders GDS. With the meagre amount of allowance, they are unable to meet both ends. They are entitled to benefits as granted to the;
applicants in O.A.No.811 of 1988 and in the case of Suguna & others. Therefore, they made representations to the competent authority to absorb them as GDS, considering their long years of service. In the years 1987 and"
1988, some of the Outsiders/Substitutes approached this Tribunal for absorption as GDS in O.A.No.811 of 1988 and batch cases. On considering | the larger interest and also the fact that they belonged to the poorer section of the community, this Tribunal directed the Respondents therein to absorb them as GDS, after framing a suitable Scheme, in this regard. The:
Department complied with the said order and framed a Scheme, dated 23.12.1993, and, thereby absorbed them all. The Respondent Postal Department is continuously engaging Outsider/Substitute GDS either by themselves or through permanent incumbent of GDS, The Outsiders appointed/nominated by GDS "should be approved by the competent;
authority. Therefore, they are deemed to be appointed by the Department. Without these Outsiders/Substitutes, the Postal Department could not effectively function and cater to the needs of the public. The GDS Substitutes. work as such, till the satisfaction of the Department, without any service benefits, such as, absorption, etc. From 2004-2005 onwards, the Substitutes _ were denied absorption and, hence, they filed O.As before this 'Tribunal in the matter of A.Suguna & others. Alt these O.As were allowed by this Tribunal. The Department filed W.Ps and the same were dismissed by the-
Hon'ble High Court, Madras (in the case of Suguna and others). Hence, the
-) 21 OA 1890/2016 & Balen Department filed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).21825/2006 and it was also dismissed by an order, dated 19.02.2015, confirming the order of this Tribunal and, thereby, all the Applicants therein were absorbed very:
recently. In the case of Suguna and others, they had completed 240 days or above, But, the Applicants have rendered long years of service and, therefore, they are eligible for absorption. Since the services of"
Outsiders/Substitutes are very much required in the Postal Department, on considering their long years of service, the Department has to frame a. Scheme to absorb them as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Union of India -Vs- Debika Guha and others. Hence, the Applicants are entitled to absorption as GDS as in the case of Suguna and others.
3.1 The applicants in OA 27/2017 were engaged by the respondents as Mazdoor/Casual Labourers from the year 2006 onwards in the leave vacancies. The applicants 1 to 3 were working as Mazdoor till 23.12.2016 and the applicants 4 & 5 were disengaged from 2013. All the applicants: made representation to the respondents on 21.04.2015 for absorption as GDS and when there was no response, they filed OA 787/2015 and this Tribunal, vide order, dated 19.09.2016, disposed of the said OA, by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations. The respondents, vide order, dated 14.12.2016, rejected the claim of the.
applicants.
3.2 The applicant in OA 303/2017 was initially engaged in the year 1988 by the Postal Department and he was engaged on provisional basis as GDS in the year 1990 and as an Outsider, w.e.f. 02.06.2002, and he has put in 26 years of service in the Postal Department. He made a representation on.
23.10.2015 for absorption in the department and, when there was no
22 OA 1890/2016 2Batth response, he filed OA 521/2016 and this Tribunal, vide order, dated 30.03.2016 disposed of the said OA with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of his representation. The respondents, vide order, * dated 07.12.2016, rejected the claim of the applicant.
3.3. The applicant in OA 642/2017 was initially appointed as Night. Watchman in the respondent department, w.e.f 22.10.1985, and was working as such, He has also been engaged as Postman and in Group D as leave substitute. Since most of his seniors were granted temporary status in ° Group D post and, thereafter, appointed in Group D on regular basis, the applicant made several representations to absorb him on regular basis, but the same was rejected.
3.4 The applicant in OA 1079/2017 was engaged by the respondents as GDS Messenger in the year 1998 on stop gap arrangement. By order, dated"
03.12.2002, he was posted on provisional basis to work as GDS MC and he was working as an Outsider GDS, till 11.04.2017. He has completed 18 years of service in the department. Since he made a representation, dated .
10.03.2017, he was disengaged from service w.e.f 12.04.2017, 3.5 The applicant in OA 1080/2017 was engaged by the respondents as an:
Outsider/Mazdoor/Casual Labourer on 17.01.2001 to work in the leave vacancy of MTS/Group D and he was working as such. He made a representation on 23.06.2016 for absorption, but the same was rejected by the respondents, vide order, dated 25.07.2016.
3.6 The applicant in OA 1230/2017 & OA 350/2018 worked as Telegram * Carrier against leave vacancy since 1998 and also as GDS Mail Deliverer-II for more than 13 years. He filed OA 923/2012 for inclusion of his name. in the Dovetailed list, but the same was dismissed, vide order, dated ree W) 23 OA 1890/2016 &Baleh 18.03.2015. When a_ similarly placed person, Shri P,Selvaraj, was given regular appointment, the applicant made a 'representation, dated
04.12.2013, to extend the same benefit to him. When there was no? response, he filed OA 507/2016 seeking regular appointment, as was given to a similarly placed person, Shri P.Selvaraj, and the said OA was disposed of on 28.03.2016 directing the respondents to consider the case of the. applicant. But the respondents, vide order, dated 30.09.2016, rejected his case. Thereafter, he filed OA 1230/2017 seeking regular appointment. The, grievance of the applicant is that when OA 923/2012 was pending, the respondents stated that his request for engaging him as GDS could not be considered since the said OA was pending and now they are stating that because of pendency of OA 1230/2017, his request could not be considered and, thus, the respondents are taking protection against pending OAs to.
deny the post of GDS to the applicant.
3.7 All the applicants in OA 668 & 669/2019 were working in the Postal Department for many years as Substitutes/Outsiders/Casual Labourers and > they are aggrieved by the respondent's Order No.17-39/4/2012-GDS, dated 14.01.2015, in so far as the condition of the cut off date of 01.09.1993, | prescribed for absorption as GDS, is concerned and their further prayer is to absorb them as GDS by framing a Scheme as was done on earlier occasions, as per the judgment of this Tribunal In OA 811/1988.
3.8 The applicant in OA 857/2019, an ex-serviceman, was engaged as GDS Outsider in the Postal Department for the past 14 years. He made-a. representation on 07.03.2019 for his absorption, but the same was rejected by the respondents, vide order, dated 09.04.2019.
3.9 The applicant in OA 1075/2019 was engaged as GDS Outsider in the ee 24 OA 1890/2016 & Balch year 1992 and was working in the Postal Department till the date of filing of the OA. He has put in 26 years of service as GDS Outsider. When he requested for absorption, the respondents, vide order, dated 06/06.02.2017, . rejected his claim. Aggrieved, he filed OA 337/2018 and the same was disposed of by this Tribunal, vide order, dated 09.07.2018, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant. The applicant® made a representation, dated 15.10.2018, but the same was rejected by the respondents, vide order, dated 30.01.2019.
3.10 The applicant in OA 1207/2019 was working as GDS Outsider from the year 2003 in the respondent department. Finally, he was working as GDS Packer from October, 2017, to August, 2018. He made representation, dated 02.11.2018, and when there was no response, he filed OA 762/2019, wherein this Tribunal, vide order, dated 20.06.2019, directed the respondents | to consider and dispose of the representation of the applicant. The respondents, vide order, dated 31.07.2019, rejected the claim of the applicant.
4, After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through their counsel and filed their counter and refuted all the allegations made by the. applicants in the OAs and opposed the relief claimed by the applicants. The respondents have submitted that the applicants have been engaged as Substitutes by the ED Agents. Though their appointment as Substitutes:
against the vacancy has been approved by the competent authority, they do not have any legal right to claim the regularization/absorption or appointment as GDS and the issue in this matter has already been settled by the Hon. Apex Court in a catena of cases. Even for persons who have been appointed on contractual basis, after following the due process of law;
25 OA 1890/2016 &Bofeh and worked for years together, the Hon. Supreme Court has denied the:
benefit of regularization. The respondents further submit that the applicants in the OA have not given the details as to since when they have been working in the organisation as Substitutes and in which Post Office they are working and, in the absence of such details, their OAs cannot be entertained.
Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the OAs.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicants has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the pleadings and grounds raised in the OA and supported their claim with various judgments.
6, The respondents have also filed a reply to the rejoinder, reiterating the stand taken in the reply, and they also supported their claim with various:
judgments.
7. Learned Counsel for the applicants, by way of a comprehensive typed set, relied upon the following orders:-
(i} Order, dated 28.04.2000, of the Hon. Supreme Court in SLP Civil Appeal No.3080 of 2000 (Debika Guha's case) (iij)Order, dated 24.11.2005, of the High Court, Madras, in the matter of Suguna and others
(iii) Order, dated 19.02.2015, in SLP in the case of Suguna and others
(iv) Order, dated 23.01.2006, in W.P.No.27274 of 2004 (V.Gurusamy)
(v) Order, dated 30.04.2009, in W.P.No.28040 of 2005 (Shri.Lovely C.Krishna)
(vi) Order, dated 09.02.2010, of Ernakulam Bench of CAT, in O.A.No. 744 of 2009
(vii) Order, dated 06.08.2018, of CAT, Chennai, in O.A.No.1208 of 2013 & batch cases (G.Irudhayaraja and others)
(viii) Order, dated 03.08.2010, in M.L.Kesari's case
(ix) Order, dated 14.03.2011, in WP No. 19634 of 2010
(x) Order, dated 19.07.2011, in WP No.16733 of 2009 and batch case
(xi) Order, dated 22.01.2019, in Civil Appeal No.898-900 of 2019
(xii) Order, dated 09.03.2021, in WP (C) No 1162 / 2018 and batch cases (HC of Tiripura) ) 26 OA 1890/2016 @Baléh
(xiii) Order, dated 27.04.2023 in WP No.13611 of 2013 and batch cases* (MHC)
8. The respondents also, by way of case law compilation, relied upon the mo following judgments:
(i)Order, dated 23.11.2016, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in OA No.1792 & 1830/2013, in the matter of E.Palani versus UOI, rep. by CPMG, TN Circle, Chennai- 2 and another. i
(ii)Order, dated 12.01.2017, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, in OA No.1754/2015, in the matter of Valarmathi and 24 others versus UOI, rep. by Dept. of Posts, New Delhi and 2 others.
(iii}Order, dated 08.02.2018, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, . Bangalore Bench, in OA No. 761/2015, in the matter of T.Hari Prasad versus Department of Posts, (iv}Order, dated 27.11.2020, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in OA No. 318/2019, in the matter of Basavaraj versus UOI and 3 others.
(v)Order, dated 04.08.2021, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in OA No.32/2020, in the matter of B.M.Pradeep Kumar versus Department of Posts.
(vijOrder, dated 07.10.2021, of the Hon. Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5689-5690 of 2021, In the matter of UOT versuss Ilmo Devi and another,
(vii) Order, dated 08.10.2021, of the High Court, Bombay in WP No.£338/2045, in the matter of UOI, through the Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion and another versus Smt.Lalitha V.Mertia.
9. Learned Counsel for the applicants relied upon the Leave Rules of GDS Para 2; Granting of leave to ED agents and appointment of Substitutes. The relevant paras are extracted hereunder:
"(2) Granting of ieave to ED Agents and appointment of substitutes, A reference is invited to Rule 5 of the ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, according to which the employees shail be entitled to such leave as may be determined from time to time. In accordance with this provision, Government of India have decided that leave for ED Agents should be regularised as below-
{i} The expression "leave" as applied to ED Agents means "period during which with the approval of the Appointing Authority, an ED Agent is permitted not to attend personally to the duties assigned to him, provided that in cases where a Superintendent of Post Offices is the Appointing Authority, such approval may be accorded on his behalf, by the concerned 27 OA 1890/2016 2Paleh Inspector of Post Offices for a period not exceeding 60 days". 3% An Inspector of Post Offices will be competent to sanction leave for a period not exceeding 60 days in cases where the Appointing Authority is the Superintendent.
(2) During leave, every ED Agent should arrange for his work being carried on by a substitute who should be a person approved by the authority competent to sanction leave to him. Such approval should be obtained in writing.
(3) The allowance normally payable to an ED Agent shall, during leave, be paid to the approved substitute provided by him.
(4) No ED Agent should be permitted leave of absence for more than 90 days at a stretch which may be extended up to 180 days in exceptional circumstances by the Divisional Superintendent of Post Offices. The maximum period of leave which may be sanctioned to an ED Agent in a single stretch shall not exceed 180 days. Leave of absence in excess of 180 days may be granted by Heads of Circles* only in cases where the necessity for leave arises due to ED Agent officiating in a departmental post. The Heads of Circles have been delegated powers to sanction leave to EDAs beyond 180 days on account of genuine illness (effective 12-9-1988).
(5) If an ED Agent remains on leave for more than 180 days at a stretch, he will be liable to be proceeded against under Rule 8 of EDAs (Service and Conduct) Rules, 1964, (6) Leave shall not ordinarily be availed by an ED Agent at frequent intervals. If an ED Agent is found to have taken leave at frequent intervais for a total period of 180 days or more in a period of one year, he shall cease to be an ED Agent.
2. Application form is to be obtained in quadruplicate from the ED Agent proceeding on leave and after the sanctioning authority has passed the orders on the application, one copy should be handed over to the ED Agent and another to the substitute, the third copy being retained as the office copy for the file of the sanctioning authority. A copy should be given to the concerned Drawing Officer (Head Postmaster) for drawing the allowances to the substitute provided by the ED Agent."
Accordingly, whenever the ED agent is applying for leave, he has to submit his application form in quadruplicate and, after the sanctioning authority has passed the orders on the application, one copy should be handed over the ED agent and another to the Substitute, the third copy being retained as -
e) 28 OA 1890/2016 & Baki, the office copy for the file of the sanctioning authority. A copy should be given to the concerned Drawing Officer (Head Postmaster) for drawing the allowances to the Substitute provided by the ED agent.
a 9.1. Learned counsel for the applicant further argues that whenever the ED agent opts for leave, he has to provide a Substitute and, after verification, the competent authority has to approve the Substitute's appointment 'ins place of the ED agent for the said ledve period. As mentioned in the GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, "Rule 3: Approval of the Substitutes in the place of ED agents proceeding on leave:
wthe choice of the Substitute is left to the ED agent himself. In most cases, this arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily. There are, however, a few cases, where the substitutes appointed, later claim regular appointment as ED agents and are not prepared to quit when required."
It is provided in the latest instructions that the substitutes should be approved by the appointing authorities. It is not the intention that there should be any elaborate procedure to be followed for according such approval. in cases where leave is not got sanctioned in advance, we may not even insist upon prior approval of the substitute but the Department should not be precluded from making such inquiries into the antecedents of the substitutes as considered necessary and to ask an ED Agent to provide another substitute, if it is found that the one actually proposed by the ED Agent is not acceptable.
Tt will be a good working arrangement, if substitutes nominated by the ED Agent are approved in advance by the competent authority so that, there may be no difficulty in granting leave of absence at a short notice in cases of illness or any unforeseen circumstances affecting the ED Agent."
9,2 Following the DOPT Circular, dated 07.06.1988, all the Substitutes have' been granted one paid weekly off after six days of continuous work. On Court's intervention, the Department of Posts has framed this Scheme on 17.05.1989 to regularise the services of the Part-time and Full-time Casual Labourers. The relevant portion of the same is extracted hereunder:-
1. Part-time and Full-time Casuaj Labourers. It is hereby clarified () 3 29 OA 1890/2016 that all the daily wagers working in Post Offices or in RMS Offices or in Administrative Offices or PSDS/MMS under different designations ~ (mazdoor, casual labourer, contingent paid staff, daily wager, dally-
rated mazdoor, outsider) are to be treated as casual labourers. Those casual labourers who are engaged for a period of not less than 8 hours a day should be described as full time casual gBalah z labourers. Those casual labourers who are engaged for a period of --, less than 8 hours a day should be described as part-time casual labourers. All other designations should be discontinued.
Substitutes engaged against absentees should not be designated casual labourer. For purposes of recruitment to Group 'D' posts, substitutes should be considered only when casuai labourers are not~ .
available. That is, substitute will rank last in priority, but will be above outsiders. In other words, the following priority should be observed: -
(i) NTC Group 'D' officials.
(if} EDAs of the same Division.
(iii) Casual labourers (full time or part-time. For purpose of computation of eligible service, half of the service rendered as part- time casual labourer should be teken into account. That is, if a part- time casual labourer has served for 480 days in a period of 2 years, he will be treated, for purposes of recruitment, to have completed one year of service as full time casual labourer).
(iv) EDAs of other divisions in the same Region.
(v) Substitutes (not working in Metropolitan cities)
(vi) Direct recruits through Employment Exchange.
* 9.3. Learned counse! for the applicant, in support of his contention, relied | upon the order, dated 20.04.1990, passed by this Tribunal in OA 811/1988 & batch, in-the matter of National Postal Temporary Employees' Union & others Vs. UOI & others, wherein, for the first time, the issue in respect of Outsiders -
like the applicants has been considered at length and, accordingly, the respondents have been directed to frame the Scheme. Thereby, the respondents, vide OM, dated 08.04.1991, framed the Scheme for regularisation of services of Casual Labourers in Group D_ post, with -
relaxation in employment procedure as well as upper age limit. The:
department also framed a Scheme on 28.12.1993 in respect of the ED Outsiders, the persons who are working as Substitutes engaged by the ED 30 OA 1890/2016 Balch agents during their leave period. Accordingly, as a one time measure, the.
Scheme was framed for their absorption and therein in Para 5 it is observed as under:
"It should be ensured hereafter that substitutes are not engaged in ED vacancies for long periods indefinitely in case of prolonged leave vacancies, a provisional appointment should be made through the Employment Exchange after observing the due process."
9.4 Learned Counsel for the applicant further relied upon the judgment, dated 28.04.2000, of the Hon.Supreme Court in C.A.No,3080 of 2000 in the matter of UOI & Ors. Vs. Debika Guha & Others wherein the Hon. Supreme Court has observed, "if it is shown that they have worked for jong periods continuously, it will be for the department to consider the same whether that.
was a proper case of absorption or not and pass appropriate orders."
9.5 Learned Counsel for the applicants further submits that there have been many rounds of litigation with regard to the present issue. The ED Substitutes approached various Courts, including this Tribunal, and their cases have been, time and again, considered for absorption and, regularisation and the department has considered their cases, Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the order, dated 23.01.2006, of the Hon. High Court of Madras, in WP No.27274 of 2004, wherein the Hon. High > Court, following the judgment in the case of UOI Vs. A.Suguna & amr, dismissed the writ petition filed by the department, confirming the order OF the Tribunal, directing the respondent department to consider the case of the applicant therein for inclusion of his name in the dovetailed list for appointment to the ED post in accordance with seniority. Learned counsel:
for the applicants also relied upon the order, dated 09.02.2010, of the Ernakulam bench of this Tribunal, in OA 744/2009, wherein the Tribunal 31 OA 1890/2016 Baten directed the respondent department to consider the applicant for appointment to the post of GDS Mail Packer, Ayyanthole giving her the benefit contained in the letter, dated 06.06.1988, of theDG Posts, Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon the policy decision taken by the:
respondents on 30.06.2014, in the matter of Casual Labourers working In the Department, in compliance with the Hon. Supreme Court Judgments in Uma Devi case, whereby it was held that, "Regularisation of all the Casual Labourers, who have been irregularly appointed, but are duly qualified persons in terms of statutory recruitment rules for the post and was engaged | against a sanctioned post, shall be done if they have worked for 10 years or more but not under the cover of orders of the courts or tribunals as on the date of Hon. Apex Court's ibid judgment, i.e., 10.04.2006. By another letter, ° dated 14.01.2015, it has been instructed to the concerned authorities to give preference to the Casual Labourers in the matter of engagement as GDS, by deleting the condition of sponsorship from employment exchange and to allow preference in GDS posts to casual labourers (full time and part time), engaged on or before 01.09.1993, subject to fulfilment of certain conditions : laid down in the said letter. The department has also taken a call in respect of the remuneration payable to full time Casual Labourers, vide OMs, dated 22.01.2015 & 17.06.2016, while filling up the vacancies of GDS and' considering the earlier circulars, giving preference to the Casual Labourers.
The department, vide letter, dated 02.01.2017, issued a direction to all the Chief Postmaster Generals to.identify the remaining GDS vacancies for notification through online software and fill up the same with eligible Casual Labourers, 9.6 Learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon the OM, dated 31.03.2017, wherein it is observed, "..minimum pay for calculation of pay of.
32 OA 1890/2016 # Balen casual labourers (without temporary status) may be considered as the | minimum pay of Levell of the Pay Matrix as per the recommendations of 7"
Pay Commission, i.e., Rs.18000/-. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon the OM, dated 30.10.2019, issued by the respondent department. in implementation of recommendations of Kamlesh Chandra Committee on giving preference to Casual Labourers in selection to GDS posts. With various data, the department has started the process to appoint the GDS by way of online engagement process. Learned counsel for the applicant also relied upon other judgments as mentioned in Para 7 above. :
9.7 Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that, though direction has been given in the 1993 Scheme to the respondents not to engage Substitutes for long period or indefinite period, they have engaged the' Substitutes and they have been serving for long period and, therefore, if a direction is given to the department to consider their request for absorption .
as GDS, it will be helpful for the survival of the applicants who have been working with the department.
9.8 Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that some of the' applicants attained the age of superannuation, as per the GDS Rules, and, therefore, they are entitled to the ex-gratia amount and other benefits, if vat. all the respondents are considering their claim for absorption. Some of the employees are still working, and this Tribunai granted interim relief, vide order, dated 25.09.2019, and directed the respondents not to disengage* them. The respondents may be directed not to disengage them till the disposal of their request, in accordance with the department's policies/Scheme/Rules in the matter of absorption of such Substitutes as GDS, following various observations of this Tribunal as weil as Hon. High 33 OA 1890/2016 #Balzh Court and Supreme Court as referred to above.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents* vehemently opposed the relief on the ground that all the applicants are fully aware of the fact that they have been engaged as Substitutes and they have 4 no legal vested right to claim such regular appointment as well as absorption. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the rules reiterated in the applicants' submissions as well as he relied upon the case; law in his support. Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the relief prayed by the applicants, on the ground that, even recently, the Hon. Supreme Court, vide order, dated 07.10.2021, in C.A.No.5689-5690 of 2021, in the matter of Imo Devi and another, held as under:-
8.4 The observations made in paragraph 9 are on surmises and conjunctures. Even the observations made that they have worked continuously and for the whole day are also without any basis and for which there is no supporting evidence. In any case, the fact remains that the respondents served as part-time employees and were contingent paid staff. As observed above, there are no sanctioned posts in the Post Office in which the respondents were working, therefore, the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order are not permissible in the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court cannot, in exercise of the power under Article 226, issue a Mandamus to direct the Department te sanction and create the posts. The High Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, also cannot direct the Government and/or the Department to formulate a particular regularization policy. Framing of any scheme is no function of the Court and is the sole prerogative of the Government. Even the creation and/or sanction of the posts is also the sole prerogative of the Government and the High Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot issue Mandamus and/or direct to create and sanction the posts.
8.5 Even the regularization policy to regularize the services of the employees working on temporary status and/or casual labourers is a policy decision and in judicial review the Court cannot issue Mandamus and/or issue mandatory directions to do so. In the case of R.S. Bhonde and Ors. (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that the status of permanency cannot be
- granted when there is no post. It is further observed that mere continuance every year of seasonal work during the period when O 34 OA 1890/2016 RBateh work was available does not constitute a permanent status unless there exists a post and regularization Is done.
8.6 In the case of Daya La! & Ors. (supra) in paragraph 12, it is observed and held as under:-
"42. We may at the outset refer to the following well settled principles relating to regularisation and parity in pay, relevant in the context of these appeals: aaa
(i) The High Courts, in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution will not issue directions for regularisation, absorption or permanent continuance, unless the employees claiming regularisation had been appointed in pursuance of a regular recruitment in 4 accordance with relevant rules in an open competitive process, against sanctioned vacant posts. The equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16 should be scrupulously followed and Courts should not issue a direction for regularisation of services of an employee which would be violative of the constitutional scheme.
While something that is irregular for want of compliance with one of the elements in the process of selection which does not go to the root of the process, can be regularised, back door entries, appointments contrary to the constitutional scheme and/or appointment of ineligible candidates cannot be regularised.
(ii) Mere continuation of service by a temporary or ad hoc or daily-wage employee, under cover of some interim orders of the court, would not confer upon him any right to be absorbed into service, as such service would be "litigious employment", Even temporary, ad hoc or daily- wage service for a long number of years, let alone service fer one or two years, will not entitle such employee to claim regularisation, if he is not working against a sanctioned post. Sympathy and sentiment cannot be grounds for passing any order of regularisation in the absence of a legal right.
(iii) Even where a scheme is formulated for regularisation with a cut-off date (that is a scheme providing that persons who had put in a specified number of years of service and continuing in employment as on the cut-off date), it is not possible to others who were appointed subsequent to the cut-off date, to claim or contend that the scheme should be applied to them by extending the cut-off date or seek a direction for framing of fresh schemes providing for successive cut-off dates.
(iv) Part-time employees are not entitled to seek regularisation as they are not working against any sanctioned posts. There cannot be a direction for absorption, regularisation or permanent continuance of part-time temporary employees.
(v) Part-time temporary employees in government-run are § PT a tert ay O 35 OA 1890/2016 & Batch.
institutions cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees of the Government on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Nor can employees in private employment, even if serving full time, seek parity in salary with government employees. The right to claim a particular salary against the State must arise under a contract or under a statute.
[See State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) [(2006) 4 SCC 1], M. Raja v. CEERI Educational Society [(2006) 12 SCC 636], 7 S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279], Kurukshetra Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. Mehar Chand [(2007) £5 SCC 680] and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand [(2008) 10 SCC 1.] ° Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicants have not even submitted their details as to when they were engaged and_-in which post office. Even for the department, if at all they want to consider their cases, it is not possible to do so.
41. Heard both sides and perused the records.
12. tis to be noted that, in the year 1993, the department themselves have framed the Scheme to regularise the Casual Labourers and ED, Outsiders. At Para 5, it is made clear that, "tt should be ensured hereafter that substitutes are not engaged _ in ED vacancies for long periods indefinitely in case of prolonged a leave vacancies, a provisional appointment should be made through the Employment Exchange after observing the due process."
The said position has been reiterated again on 21.10.2002. Therein the department has issued guidelines for regulating the Substitute/provisional arrangements made in place of regular GDS, following the orders passed by the CAT, Bangalore Bench, as well as the orders of the Hon. Supreme Court' in the matter of Debika Guha Vs. Union of India, wherein the Hon. Supreme Court has not recognised the right of the substitutes for regularisation.
ww Though the department has issued guidelines for regulating the 36 OA 1890/2016 84Bakch Substitutes/provisional arrangements, made in place of regular GDS, with directions that the instructions given in the said communication, dated, 21.10.2002, may kindly be brought to the notice of all appointing authorities of GDSs for strict compliance and any violation of the said instructions will be ee viewed seriously and action would be required to be taken against officials * who allow substitute/provisional arrangements to continue beyond the prescribed limits, in contravention of the above instructions, In the present | cases, the applicants have been permitted to work continuous for a long period of time.
Even, thereafter, the respondent department is taking the a services of the substitutes provided by the GDS and approval has been -
accorded to such appointment by the competent authority itself.
13. extracted hereunder:
No.17-115/2001 - GDS Government of India Ministry of Communications & IT Department of Posts Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg New Delhi - 110001 Dated : October 21, 2002 ~ To All Principle / Chief Postmasters General All Postmasters General Director, Postal Staff College, Ghaziabad Directors, All Postal Training Centres All Directors, Dy. Directors of Accounts (Postal) Addl. Director General, APS, Army Head Quarters, R.K.Puram, New Delhi Sub:- Guidelines for regulating substitute / provisional arrangements made in place of regular Gramin Dak Sevaks.
Sir, References are received from Circles for regularizing the employment of substitutes provided by regular GDSs during their periods of leave/absence on the ground that they have been functioning in that capacity "for a longer period". A number of cases also stand filed in the Tribunals and Courts on this issue. Apparently instructions Issued from time fo time are not followed rationally by competent authorities in allowing substitutes te continue indefinitely or for long periods.
Communication No.17-115/2001 - GDS, dated 21.10.2002, .is_ e 37 OA 1890/2016 # Baleh
2. in this context, | am directed to draw your attention to the DG (Posts)'s instructions given below Rule § of the P&T ED agents (Conduct & Services) Rules, 1964 corresponding to Rule 7 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & .
Employment) Rules, 2004 which, inter alia, stipulate the following.
"During leave, every GDS should arrange for his work being carried on by a substitute who should be a person approved by the authority competent to sanction leave to him. Such approval should be obtained in writing" and that:
"It is necessary for the appointing authority to ensure that such a substitute is not allowed to work indefinitely. If the absence from duty of the regular GDS likely to last indefinitely, the appointing authority should take immediate steps to make appointment and the person so appointed need not necessarily be the substitute.
3. Instructions issued vide, this office letter No, 18-37/92-ED & TRG, dated 25/11 enjoined all Divisional Heads to ensure that long leave beyond 180 days is not granted to GDS as a matter of routine to avoid substitutes continuing in place of regular incumbents for long periods.
4. Subsequently, vide letter No. 19-6/2000-ED & TRG, dated 29-12-2000, the decision of the large bench of CAT Bangalore on the issue of whether weightage should be given to persons who have rendered past employment on provisional basis or in the capacity of substitute or GDS, was circulated. Recently, vide letter dated 19.02.2002 the judgment of the larger bench of CAT Bangalore mentioned above, has also been circulated. The said Judgment clearly reiterates the position that the substitutes have not legal right as far as regularization in the Department fs concerned. It also takes note that the Department's Recruitment Rules for Gramin Dak Sevaks do not provide for recognization of past service that may have been rendered by them against any post.
5. In the case of Deviks Guha vis Union of India, the Supreme Court has also not recognized the right of the substitutes for regularization. On the other hand the Apex court has maintained that substitutes have no lega! claim in the basis of having worked continuously and if there are cases where the substitutes have worked for a "longer period" it is for the Department to consider the same as to whether there was a proper case for absorption or not, and pass appropriate orders,
6. The matter has been examined in consultation with Ministry of Law. Since the Apex Court has hold that substitutes have not lega! claim there can be no definition of the term "longer period" as absorption of substitutes per se on regular vacancies without following prescribed procedures of recruitment could lead to nepotism.
7. Thus, it has become necessary to review and reiterate the existing guidelines relating to "substitute" arrangement of GDSs. This would also involve clarification of the status of the substitute, who is provided at the risk and responsibility of the regular incumbent, vis-a-vis provisional appointees, who are appointed by the Department to meet an interim need.
8, As per extent orders, a regular GDS is required to provide a substitute at his own risk and responsibility but subject to approved by the appointing authority. Hence it is the duty of the appointing authority to ensure that any ineligible person is not approved as a substitute and any "substitute"
arrangement is not allowed to continue for long periods. Accordingly, the following guidelines may inevitably be kept in view while dealing with matters relating to "substitute arrangements" or their continuance", mn 38 OA 1890/2016 % Baléh
(i) Before resorting of substitute arrangement the following options may be explored: . ;
(a) In case of short-term arrangements, as far as possible, work will be managed, by combining duties and "substitutes" will not be provided in leave arrangements. In single handed BOs, the work shall be managed by giving combined duty to GDS Mail Deliver/Mail Carrier (Gramin Dak Vitaraka/Vahak) of the neighbouring BO/SO in whose beat the BO falls.
(b) Even in long term arrangements, the combination of duties as in a) above wili restricted to; substitutes will be allowed only if work load of the BO as well as its financial position justifies which engagement or filling of the post on regular basis.
(c) In towns and cities, where departmental officials are also available in the same office, the possibility of managing the work by regular staff by combination of duties or by grant of OTA beyond normal working hours may be explored.
{ii} if substitute arrangement is found to be unavoidable then it should be ensured that
(a) No substitute will be allowed to take over charge unless the competent leave-sanctioning/appointing authority is fully satisfied that the substitute possesses all the qualification prescribed for that appointment and has been provided under the risk and responsibility of the regular incumbent,
(b) Drawing & Disbursing authorities shall not draw allowance of a substitute unless the claim is accompanied by a certificate from the competent authority about the possession of requisite qualification by the substitutes and their approval for making continuing the arrangement.
(c} Continuation of substitute arrangements beyond 130 days at a stretch may only be allowed by the authority next higher to the appointing authority and only in exceptional cases where action has been initiated for regular appointment, if justified by work load and financial norms.
(d)} No substitute arrangement shall continue beyond one year. Hence regular/alternative arrangements must be made during the period beyond 180 days to ensure this. If for any unavoidable reasons a substitute arrangement is required to be continued beyond one year, specific approval of the Head of Circle will be necessary for reasons to be recorded by the concerned authority, 9, In the case of provisional appointments, it is clarified that such appointment should be resorted to only in case where the GDS is unable, quite unexpectedly, to undertake his duties due to his own action (unauthorized absence, fraud, misappropriation efc.). Due to circumstances beyond his control Jike sudden serious illnessfaccidentideath or because the department does not want him/her to continue (due to reasons. of misconduct/dismissal/removal/put off duty etc.) in all other cases, action should be taken well in advance to fill the post on a regular basis, Even where the post falls vacant unexpectedly, efforts should be made to manage the work through combination of duties as spelt out in Para 8 (i) (a) & (c). Similarly even in case of long term deputation of GDS to APS, action may be taken to full up the post on regular basis and the GDS, on return from deputation may be suitably adjusted against vacancies in existence at that given time.
10. |" " Wheréprovisionaliap poifitment Becomes 'tinavoidablé, action sages Pg RS FAS ROSTERS TEES En ROELEN: THE: RS eer al ee aes See on ee may be initiated. to'all:the: post following a the; formalities, prescribéd, for regular appointment," but--clearly-stipulati provisional basis, On.no'acco without following "ev circumstances: shouldisuchilocaliarran eae s?
Se eat teas er om .
239 OA 1890/2016 B8alab ISONnSatOube 1i. In cases where the incumbent dies in harness there is no objection to a -- - dependent being allowed to function on interim basis provided the dependent ' fulfills the qualification/relaxed qualification applicable for post fallen vacant? This may only be resorted to if arrangement by combination of duties is not feasible. However, in such case also such interim appointment should not exceed one year and every effort should be made to take a final view within that time frame. lf also needs to be clearly stipulated that such provisional ~~ appointment does not entitle the dependent to claim for the post unless his/her case for compassionate appointment is approved by the Circle Relaxation Committee.
&
12. The extent provisions provide for a provisional appointee to be placed on a waiting list for being considered for a regular appointment after he/she has completed three years of continuous employment. To avoid prolongation of such provisional appointments, approval of the next higher authority should be taken in respect of all provisional appointment exceeding 180 and where the period exceeds one year express approval of the Head of the Regionjcircle, as the case may be, would be necessary. Where the regular incumbent is not reinstated, immediate action must be taken to regularize the regularly selected ~ provisional appointee against the said post without resorting to fresh recruitment.
13. The above instructions may kindly be brought to the notice of all appointing authorities of GDSs for strict compliance. Any violation of the above _ instructions will be viewed seriously and action would be required to be taken against officials who allow substitute/provisional arrangements to continue beyond the prescribed limits in contravention of the above instruction.
14. If any previous instructions on the issues of 'substitute' and 'provisional appointment' are found contrary to these provisions, the same will stand superseded by the latter.
15. Receipt of this Jetter may please be acknowledged to the undersigned, 16, Hindi version is enclosed.
14. It is not in dispute that the Department of Posts is in need of man- power to serve the department and fulfil the interests of the department to deliver the postal materials in remote areas. It is also to be noted that the Postal Department is very much in need of manpower for service in physical mode to avoid disruption of services in remote areas wherever there are no technological substitutes that may replace the human service. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that, following the judgment passed by the Hon. Supreme Court in the matter of Debika Guha Vs. Union of India supra, the OAs can be disposed of with a direction to the applicants to submit their Kaa * 40 | OA 1890/2016 aBakch.
detailed and comprehensive representations, giving the details of their services, such as, their date of joining in the department, place of posting and all other relevant details, within four weeks along with the copy of the. judgment and with a further direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants, after verifying the details provided by them, -in, accordance with their policy decision of 1993 & 2002, as well as following the judgements supra, though it is in favour of the respondent department, in t the interest of public.
15. Accordingly, the OAs are disposed of with a direction to the applicants to submit their detailed and comprehensive representations, giving the, details of their services, such as, their date of joining in the department, place of posting and all other relevant details to the department, within four weeks, along with a copy of this judgment, and with further direction to the"
respondents to consider the claim of the applicants after verifying the details provided by them, in accordance with their policy decision of 1993 & 2002, as well as following the judgements supra, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representations from the applicants. Tilt then, the interim relief granted by this Tribunal will continue. Unless and:
until the representations of the applicants, who are still working with the Respondents are decided, they may not be disengaged. No order as to costs,