Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Om Prakash Sharma vs D/O Post on 19 July, 2022
(OA No.555/2016) (1) Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur Bench, Jaipur 0.A.No.555/2016 Reserved 0n:13.07.2022 Pronounced on: }4 4 >> Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A) Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J) Om Prakash Sharma son of Shri Babu Lal Sharma, aged about 25 years, resident of village & post Pakhar, Tehsil Mahuwa, District Dausa and presently working as Mail Motor Driver, MMS, under Senior Superintendent of post Offices, Jaipur City Postal Division, Jaipur-302006. Hanuman Gurjar son of Shri Kilan Sahai Gurjar, aged about 30 years, resident of P.No.152-B, Bharat Bihar, Agra Road, Jaipur and presently working as Mail Motor Driver, MMS, under Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaipur City Postal Division, Jaipur-302006. Bhawani Shankar son of Shri Narayan Lal, aged about 30 years resident of Plot No.2, Keshav Colony, Gangori Bazar, Jaipur and presently working as Mail Motor priver MMS, under Senior Superintendent of Post offices: Jaipur City Postal Division, Jaipur-302006. esh Gurjar son of Shri Chiranji Lal Gurjar, aged t 32 years, resident of House No.2723, JatkKeKuwa rasta, Chandpol Bazar, Jaipur and _ presently working as Mail Motor Driver, MMS, under Senior superintendent of Post Offices, Jaipur City Postal Jaipur-302006. Lok pivision, shok son of Shri Gajanand Ji, aged about 40 years, resident of House No.478, Sita Badi, Jhotwara, Jaipur presently working as Mail Motor Driver, MMS, der Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaipur City un | Division, Jaipur-302006. posta Lokesh Tikkiwal son of Shri Govind Tikkiwal, aged spout 33 years, resident of 378, Tikkiwalo Ka Rasta, KishanPol Bazar, Jaipur and presently working as Mail Motor Driver, MMS, | under Senior Superintendent of post offices, Jaipur City Postal Division, Jaipur-302006. (OA No.555/2016) (2) 7, Sagar Jedia son of Shri Deepak Kumar Jedia, aged about 22 years, resident of House No.52, Sita Badi, Kamani Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur and presently working as. Mail Motor Driver, MMS, under Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaipur City Postal Division, Jaipur-302006. .. Applicants. (By Advocate: Shri C.B.Sharma) Versus Union of India through its Secretary, to the . Government of India, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001. 2 Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle Jaipur - "392007. senior Manager, Mail Motor Services (Postal > Department, Narayana, New Delhi. 4 Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jaipur City Postal Division, Jaipur. . ..Respondents. (By Advocate: Shri L.M.Bhardwaj) ORDER per: pinesh Sharma, Member (A):
in this OA, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:
sj) That respondents may De | directed to consider the applicants for appointment to the cadre of Vehicle Driver/Mail Motor Driver through selection process started by notification dated 07/04/2016 (Annexure-
A/1) treating them as eligible with all consequential benefits.
ii) That respondents be further directed not to (ii put the work of Drivers in Vehicle Driver/Mail Motor Driver by way Of outsourcing by (OA No.555/2016) (3) quashing __ notification dated 01/07/2016 (Annexure-A/2) with all consequential benefits.
(iii) That the respondents be further to allow wages as per provisions of O.M. dated 07/06/1988 (Annexure-A/3) with difference of wages since joining with all consequential benefits including arrears etc.
(iv) Any other order, direction or relief may be passed in favour of the applicants which may be deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. That the costs of this application may be awarded."
(v)
2. the case of the applicants is that they have been engaged as casual Drivers for a long time. The two ;mpugned Notifications do not even give them any chance to get selected or regularized as regular Drivers. This is rary to the rules and also not in accordance with the followed in other postal circles. The applicants are cont practice peing overworked and not paid even 1/30" of the minimum salary of regular Department Drivers, which is also against the rules, and hence the prayers for relief. an interim relief by way of maintaining status quo was
3. anted py the order of this Tribunal dated 17.08.2016 g .
ondents filed thei b the resP eir reply denying the claims made P 07.04.2016 (Annexure A/1) is as per their new y the applicants. It is stated that the Notification date (OA No.555/2016) (4) Recruitment Rules, dated 24.11.2015. Under these rules, there is no provision for direct recruitment. The Notification dated 01.07.2016 (Annexure A/2) is also as per the Department's decisions, according to which the Department can engage Drivers through outsourcing agencies under certain conditions, e.g. when there is shortage of staff and the existing staff is overworked. The respondents have questioned the right of the applicants to get regular appointment, citing the yerdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Uma pevi (3) & others (2006) 4 SCC 1. The respondents Iso prayed for vacating the interim relief, stating have 4 instances of misbehavior, absence on duty etc. by some of the applican'® the respondents filed an MA (No.43/2021 dated 'e of 3021) seeking permission of this Tribunal to withdraw the smpugned orders at Annexures A/1 and A/2, which was owed vide order dated 18.08.2021. They have now prayed a , vacating the order granting interim relief (by MA 9.454/2017), a the Department has itself decided to impugned orders (thus making the O.A.
------------
(OA No.555/2016) (5) 6, The matter was finally heard on 13.07.2022 when the | earned counsel for the applicants prayed for issuing s to consider the applicants for direction to the respondent a copy of the Hon,ble regular eppointmen He has produced ate of Punjab & Others
76. The learned that the applicants had has become infructuous. In nd their O.A. no such right 4 produced a copy of support of his arguments, he Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in OA the judgment of t 7 and OA No.1 No 501/201 'ded on 01.07. 2022. h_ the records and hearing the r mind that the O.A. does e Department has decided to gned orders, Annexures A/1i and A/2. iefs claimed in this O.A). The yment of wages) is a clearly disjoint relief, r regular appointment. It is clearly totally unconnected with the two not a consequential relief to the in the o.A. The applicants are
5. By NOW, they have been working wever the engagem Oo f g g ent for the 5 (OA No.555/2016) (6) last5-6 years has been following an interim relief granted by this Tribunal. They are being referred to, at many places in the various MAs and their Annexures, aS court case Drivers, an obvious pointer to the reason for their continued existence. Our order granting interim relief itself mentions nothing about the merits of their claim and, in fact, the applicants have not shown any rule to mentions that r entitlement for e the respondents have themselves support thei consideration for appointment ular Drivers. Sinc withdraw the plicants have come to this AS reg specific Notifications, decided to st_ which the ap (following/again s no need to look into the merits ; relief), there ! Tribunal fo y the applicants in this O.A. aims made b _ is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. With of the 0.A., the interim order dated ° o stands vacated. There would be no orders i LC (Dinesh Sharma, Member (A) So a