Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Basant Kumar Srivastava Son Of Shri Ram ... vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 12 May, 2009
OPEN COURT CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH : ALLAHABAD ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 1143 OF 2003. ALLAHABAD THIS THE 12TH DAY OF May 2009 HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. YOG, MEMBER-J HONBLE MRS MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER-A Basant Kumar Srivastava Son of Shri Ram Sumer Lal Srivastava, Resident of Village Chhawani, Post Office Amodha, District Basti. . . . . . . . . .Applicant By Advocate : Shri K.C. Shukla Versus 1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. 2. Superintendent of Post Office, Basti Division, District Basti. 3. Sub- Divisional Inspector, Harraiya Sub- Division, District Basti. 4. U.P. Dakpal, Amodha, District Basti. . . . .Respondents By Advocate Shri S. Srivastava O R D E R
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. YOG, MEMBER-J Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the pleadings and documents on record.
2. Applicant was admittedly engaged by one Shri Bhajan Singh, G.D.S Postman to work as Officiating G.D.S on his own risk and responsibility. Applicants counsel fails to show from G.D.S-Postman was a competent Authority to engagement the applicant. The applicant is not entitled to any relief (i) he was engaged- purely by way of stop gap arrangement and (ii) engagement itself was not by a competent Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, referred to order dated 28.10.2003, which reads:-
28.10.2003 Honble Maj. Gen. K.K. Srivastava, A.M. Honble Mr. A.K. Bhatnagar, J.M Shri K.C. Shukla learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chandrika Prasad holding brief of Shri R.C. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents.
After hearing counsel for the parties, it is considered necessary to call for counter. Learned counsel for the respondents prays for and granted four weeks time to file C.A. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
Heard counsel for the parties on the question of interim relief. Admittedly the applicant is working as E.D.M.C. w.e.f. 1.12.2001. The applicant worked on the post till 09.09.2003 as has been averred by the applicant in para 4.4. of the O.A. Learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to the letter dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure No. 3) issued by Sub Divisional Inspector Post Office, Amodha addressed to Post Master, Basti. Perusal of the Annexure No. 3 leaves no doubt in our mind that there has been regular appointment and also that the instructions have been issued by the Higher Authority to take the work from any other casual (Departmental/GDS) employee. The legal position is well settled that a substitute employee cannot be removed by another substitute. He can be removed only by a regularly selected candidate. Therefore, the operation of the order dated 02.09.2003 (Annexure NO. 3) is stayed with direction to the respondents to allow the applicant to continue on that post and pay salary as and when it falls due.
List on 18.12.2003.
Sd/ Sd/ A.M J.M
4. It is well settled that no right accrues by virtue of working under interim order. Appointment by way of Stop Gap arrangement created no substantive rights. Applicant has no right to seek regularization or to continue to work. No attempt made on behalf of the Applicant to show that under G.D.S (Employment and Conduct) Rules 2001 a person engaged as stop gap arrangement (like the Applicant) is entitled for regular appointment.
5. O.A. has no merit and accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that amount paid to the Applicant-in lieu of his working in the Department shall be recovered
6. O.A. stands dismissed subject to above directions. No costs.
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish/-
??
??
??
??
3