Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Deepthi M vs Union Of India on 22 November, 2016
Author: P.Gopinath
Bench: P.Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION Nos. OA 555/16, 567/16,
572/16, 575/16, 576/16, 577/16, 578/16, 581/16,
582/16, 583/16, 584/16 585/16, 586/16, 587/16,
590/16, 591/16, 592/16, 594/16, 596/16, 597/16,
598/16, 611/16, 620/16, 623/16, 626/16, and 629/16
Tuesday this the 22nd day of November, 2016.
CORAM
Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.K.Balakrishnan, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mrs. P.Gopinath, Administrative Member
OA 555/2016
1 Deepthi M., D/o M. Mohanan, aged 35 years
Postman, Thanissery -680701,
Department of Posts, residing at Arackal
Kalappurayil House, Mapranam, Madayikonam PO,
Thrissur-680712.
2 Rajesh C. S/o M. Sankarankutty Nair, aged 38 years
Postman, Karuvannur-680711, Department of Posts
residing at Cheriyil House, Moorkkanad PO, Karuvannur- 680711.
3 Sivadas P.K, S/o P.U. Kumaran, aged 46 years,
Postman, Valapad, Pin 680 567, residing at Padathil House,
Valapad PO, Thrissur - 680 567.
4 Laiju C.M D/o C.M. Mohamed Kassim, aged 43 years
Postman, Kodungallur MDG Pin.680664, aged 43 years
residing at Kalakkatukaran House, Thazhekkad PO
Thrissur-680697.
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Versus
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary
to Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications, Government of
India, New Delhi-110 001.
2 The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum,-695033.
3 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Irinjalakuda Postal Division,
Irinjalakuda-680121.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. P.R. Sreejith)
OA 567/2016
Smt. Ashamol V.D. W/o K.K.Sajilkumar,
aged 39 yars, Multi Tasking Staff
O/o the SSPOs, Kottayam Division,
Kottayam-686001, residing at
Kocherivadakkekara, K.S.Puram,
Arunnoottimangalam PO,
Kaduthuruthy-686604. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. BV Joy Sanker)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary
to Government,Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts
New Delhi-110 001.
2 The Chief Postmaster General,
Department of Posts, Kerala Circle,
Trivandrum,-695001.
3 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Department of Posts, Kottayam Division
Kottayam-686001.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Brijesh AS)
OA 572/2016
1 Manju M Issac, W/o Baiju M Babu
aged 36 years, Postman, Kollam Division
Department of Posts, residing at Maruthoor House,
Vilakudy PO, Kunnicode-691508.
2 Bindhu Bhaskar W/o Prasanth V Nair,
aged 44 years, Postman, Kucakkada SO, Kollam
Division, Department of Posts, residing at
BB Mandiram, Mundukottackal BO,
Kadammanitta-689649.
3 Sheeba B Lopez,W/o Sunny Joseph, aged 44 years
Postman, Kavanad PO, Kollam Division, Department
of Posts, residing at Pullttu Veedu, Aryankavu,
Kollam District.
4 Solaman P Mathew, S/o P.C. Mathew, aged 46 years
Postman, T.K.M College PO, Kollam Division,
Department of Posts,residing at Poothen
Para House, Ranni PO.
5 S.Rajani, W/o Renjith Baby, aged 33 years
Postman, T.K.M.College PO, Kollam Division,
Department of Posts, residing at Aarivila Puthen
Veedu, Mukhathala PO.
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary
to Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications, Government of
India, New Delhi-110 001.
2 The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum,-695033.
3 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kollam Postal Division,
Kollam-691001. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. M.K. Padmanabhan Nair)
OA 575/2016
1 C.R. Binu S/o K. Raman Nair, aged 39 years
Postman, Kayamkulam HO, Mavelikkara Division,
residing at Binu Bhavan, Erezha South PO
Chettikulangara, Mavelikkara-1.
2 Nithya Soman, W/o R. Ratheesh Kumar,
aged 33 years, Postman,
Ambalapuzha, Alapuzha Division,
Residing at Puthukkattu House,
Vathikulam, Thekkara PO, Mavalikkara.
3 K.A. Aniachan S/o K.V. Antony, aged 53 years
MTS, O/o SRM RMS EK Division,
Kochi-682011 residing at Kodavassery House,
Haritha Nagar, IInd CUST PO, Kochi.22.
... Applicants
(By Advocate Mr.V. Sajithkumar)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary
to Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications, Government of
India, New Delhi-110 001.
2 The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum,-695033.
3 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mavelikkara Postal Division,
Mavelikkara-1.
4 the Superintendent of Post Offices, Alapuzha Postal
Division, Alappuzha-12.
5 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS EK Division, Kochi-682011.
6 Indu S Kurup, aged 39 years, W/o Anil Kumar
Postman, Mavelikkara HO, residing at Ravi Vihar,
Akkanttukara, Kattumala PO, Mavalikkara.
7 B.Remadevi, aged 47 years,W/o Muraleedharan Pillai
Postman, Haripad PO, residing at Kattuparambil,
Chingoli PO.
8 Jayasree V. aged 46 years, W/o T.N. Unnikrishnan Nair,
Postman, Nooranad PO, residing at Anjali, Muthukattukara
Nooranad PO.
9 Y.Najithamol, aged 34 years, W/o Sajeer, Postman
KndalloorPO, residing at Bismillah House,
Arattupuzha PO.
10 D. Vijayan, aged 46 years,S/o Dhamodharan, Postman,
Pullikanakku PO, residing at Ananthapuri, Vedaraplavu PO
Charummoodu.
11 PO Rajesh, aged 36 years S/o Uthaman R, Postman
Haripad PO, residing at Panniyapallil, Karichal,
Payipad PO, Haripad.
12 Anilkumar V. aged 47 years, S/o KN Vasu, Postman
Pullikanakku PO, residing at Amabalathuvila, Karumandal
Paravur PO.
13 Santhosh C, aged 38 years, S/o Chandran K,
Postman, Haripad PO, residing at Karipolitharayil House
Nangiarkulangara PO, Haripad.
(Respondents 6 to 13 have been impleaded vide order dated 3.11.2016 in MA
1192/2016).
. . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. S. Ramesh for R. 1 to 5 and Advocate Mr. R. Sreeraj for R 6 to 13)
OA 576/2016
1 Muneera L, W/o Afsal I, aged 37 years
Postman, Kollam HO, Department of Posts
residing at Shalimar, Kadappakkada PO,
Kollam-8.
2 Jamuna M.S W/o Sreeraj S.R. Aged 29 years,
Postman, Parippally residing atPuthusseri House,Vilackadu,
Madavoor, Pallickal PO, Trivandrum.602.
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajith Kumar)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary
to Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications, Government of
India, New Delhi-110 001.
2 The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum,-695033.
3 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kollam Postal Division,
Kollam-691001. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. E.N. Hari Menon)
OA 577/2016
1 Subhash K Sasi, S/o K.N. Sasidharan, aged 35 years
Postman, Olassa Post Office, Kottayam Division,
Department of Posts, residing at Koimadom House,
Olassa PO, Kottayam.14.
2 Indhukala C.S., W/o Anusanker, aged 33 years, Postman,
Kottayam Colelctorate PO, Kottayam Division,
Department of Posts, residing at Siva Bhavan, NSH Mount PO,
Kottayam.6.
3. Sreeprabha G Nair, W/o Vijukumar KN, aged 36 years
Postman, Kottayam HPO, Kottayam Division, Department of
Posts, resiing at Sreenilayam, Pallom PO, Kottayam .7
4 Ajiljith R S/o Raghavan Nair, aged 39 years,
Postman, Anthinad, Kottayam Division, Department of
Posts, residing at Thevarkunnel House, Amanakara PO
Ramapuram, Kottayam.
5 V.P.Surendran S/o V.P. Menon, aged 51 years, MTS (Group D)
Vaikom HO, Vaikom, residing at 8/996, F Chithira, Koovapadam,
Kochi.2.
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary
to Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications, Government of
India, New Delhi-110 001.
2 The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum,-695033.
3 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kottayam Postal Division,
Kottayam-686001. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Sreenath S)
OA 578/2016
1 Hari N S/o Narayanan KK, Postman
Thrissur Head Post Office,
residing at Kallingal House,
Vasupuram, Mattahurkunnu PO
Thrissur.
2 Sathi Devi.V.V W/o Lenin Kumar
Postman, Kechery Post Office,
residing at Anaikal House,
Porkolangad PO, Kanipiyure,
Thrissur.
3 Viny V. Kallayil W/o Reghu PP,
Postman, Pazhnji Post Office,
residing at Parappuparambil House,
Kechery PO, Thrissur.1.
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose)
Vs.
1 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thrussur Postal Division,
Thrissur-1
2 The Post Master General, Central Region,
Department of Posts, Kochi.18.
3 Union of India, represented by the Chief
Post Master General, Kerala Circle,
PMG Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.3.
. . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Sinu G Nath)
OA 581/2016
1 Sujamole PT
Postman, Ranni Post Office, Pathanamthitta
residing at Madathil Hosue, Mundapuzha
Ranni PO, Pathanamthitta.
2 Ashna Beegom M
Postman, Parakode PO, Pathanamthitta
residing at Puthenpurackal Padinjattathil Rehjula
Manzil, Parakode PO, Pathanamthitta.
3 Supriya P Nair, Postman, Postman
Konni Post Office, Pathanamthitta
residing at Suseela Bhavan, Perinjotickal PO
Payyanam, Pathanamthitta.
4 Meera K Mani, Postman,
Mezhuveli PO, Pathanamthitta
residing at Pradeepam, Kulanada PO
Pathanamthitta.3. . . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil)
Vs.
1 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Pathanamthitta.
2 The Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.33.
3 Union of India, represented by Secretary &
Director General, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
. .. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. V.A Shaji)
OA 582/2016
1 Madhavan Kutty MC, Postman,
Uppala MDG, Kasargode
residing at Madathil Kotakkat Post,
Trikaripur Via, Kasargode.
2 Ishwara Naik.A, Postman
Vidyanagar SO, Kasargode
residing at Pandigaya House,
Katukukke Post, Perla Via
Kasargode.
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil)
Vs.
1 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kasargode Division, Kasargode.
2 The Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695033.
3 Union of India, represented by Secretary &
Director General, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
. . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimootil)
OA 583/2016
Soumya SD, W/o Remeshkumar, aged 34 years
Postman, Kayamkulam HO-689502, Department of
Posts, residing at Kottarathil House,
Keerikad South, Kayamkulam.
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary to Government.
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, New Delhi-110 001
2 The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle,
Trvandrum.33.
3 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Mavelikara Postal
Division, Mavalikkara.1.
4 Indu S Kurup, aged 39 years, W/o Anil Kumar
Postman, Mavelikkara HO, residing at Ravi Vihar,
Akkanttukara, Kattumala PO, Mavalikkara.
5 B.Remadevi, aged 47 years,W/o Muraleedharan Pillai
Postman, Haripad PO, residing at Kattuparambil,
Chingoli PO.
6 Jayasree V. aged 46 years, W/o T.N. Unnikrishnan Nair,
Postman, Nooranad PO, residing at Anjali, Muthukattukara
Nooranad PO.
7 Y.Najithamol, aged 34 years, W/o Sajeer, Postman
KndalloorPO, residing at Bismillah House,
Arattupuzha PO.
8 D. Vijayan, aged 46 years,S/o Dhamodharan, Postman,
Pullikanakku PO, residing at Ananthapuri, Vedaraplavu PO
Charummoodu.
9 PO Rajesh, aged 36 years S/o Uthaman R, Postman
Haripad PO, residing at Panniyapallil, Karichal,
Payipad PO, Haripad.
10 Anilkumar V. aged 47 years, S/o KN Vasu, Postman
Pullikanakku PO, residing at Amabalathuvila, Karumandal
Paravur PO.
11 Santhosh C, aged 38 years, S/o Chandran K,
Postman, Haripad PO, residing at Karipolitharayil House
Nangiarkulangara PO, Haripad.
(Respondents 4 to 11 have been impleaded vide order dated 24.10.2016 in MA
1150/2016).
. . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. TC Krishnan, Sr.PCGC for R. 1 to 3
Advocate Mr. R. Sreeraj for R 4 to 11)
O.A No. 584/2016
1. Manju K. Thankappan,
D/o. K.I. Thankappan,
Postman, Kidangoor,
Kottayam Division, Department of Posts,
Residing at Kuzhithottiyl House,
Kudalloor (P.O), Kottayam - 686 587.
2. Sreekanth. S,
S/o. Sasi P.G,
Postman, P.D Hills, Kottayam Division,
Department of Posts, Residing at :
Sreesadhanam House, Pakalomattam (P.O),
Kuruvilangad, Kottayam - 686 633.
3. Jayalakshmi K., D/o. Thankappan K.V.,
Postman, Muttambalam, Kottayam Division,
Department of Posts, Residing at:
Ottaplackal House, Thazhathuvadakara (P.O),
Kangazha, Kottayam - 686 541.
4. Remya Raju K., D/o. Raju K.R.,
Postman, Thalayazham,
Kottaym Division, Department of Posts,
Residing at : Kodalichira House,
Thalayazham (P.O), Vaikom, Kottayam - 686 607. - Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by Secretary to
Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 033.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kottayam Postal Division, Kottayam - 686 001. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. C.P. Ravikumar, ACGSC)
O.A No. 585/2016
1. Parameswaran T.P,
S/o. Velayudhan (late),
Postman Tirur H.O, Tirur Postal Division,
Department of Posts,
Residing at : Thottiparambil House,
Irivgavoor (P.O), Malappuram - 676 103.
2. Vinu M. Vijayan,
S/o. M.G. Vijayan,
MTS, Karukachal S.O,
Changanassery Division,
Department of Posts,
Residing at : Marathamvayalil House,
Elikulam (P.O), Poovarani - 686 577.
3. Rakhi K. Sreedevi,
D/o. K.M. Kuttai,
MTS, Mundakayam, Changanassery Division,
Department of Posts,
Residing at : Illathuparambil,
Ponnkunnam (P.O), Pin - 686 506.
4. Rajeswari V.,
W/o. Sreedharan K.,
MTS, Alathur HPO, Palakkad Division,
Department of Posts, Residing at:
Puthanthodikalam House, Pattola,
Manappadom (P.O), Puthcode,
Palakkad - 678 687.
5. Jayaraj N. Nair,
S/o. K.K. Narayanan Nair,
MTS, Pathanamthitta (P.O),
Residing at: Kizhakkethil, Ranni,
Perinad (P.O), Pin - 689 711.
- Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by Secretary to
Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 033.
3. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tirur Postal Division, Tirur - 676 104.
4. The Superintendent of Post Office,
Changanassery Postal Division,
Changanassery - 686 101.
5. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office,
Palakkad Postal Division,
Palakkad - 678 001.
6. The Superintendent of Post Office,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Pathanamthitta - 689 645. - Respondent
(By Advocate Mrs. Mini R. Menon, ACGSC)
O.A No. 586/2016
1. Deepa K.R.,
W/o. Sunil Kumar T.N,
MTS, Mala (P.O) - 680 732.,
Department of Posts,
Residing at Thamarassery House,
Kuzhur (P.O), Mala (via) - 680 734.
2. Vidhu Raghavan M.,
W/o. Baiju T.V.,
Postman, Kothaparamba (P.O),
Department of Posts,
Residing at Thainathoodan House,
Manakulangara (P.O), Kodakara - 680 684.
3. Sriji C.P,
W/o. Happy P.V.,
Postman, Valappad (P.O) - 680 567.
Residing at : Panamukkath House,
Alappad (P.O), Thrissur - 680 641. - Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by Secretary to
Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 033.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Irinjalakkuda Postal Division,
Irinjalakuda - 680 121.
4. Kalpana. K,
W/o. Sureshkumar,
Postman, Mathilakam Post Office,
Residing at : Parayil House,
Avittathura (P.O), Thrissur - 680 683.
5. Sreeja T.S.
W/o. Pramod,
Postman, Irinjalakkuda Head Post Office,
Residing at : Thachemkulam House,
Chengaloor (P.O)., Thrissur - 680 312. - Respondents
(Respondents 4 &5 impleaded as additional respondents vide order dated 03.112016 in
MA No. 785/2016)
(By Advocates : Mr. Anil Ravi, ACGSC for R-1 to 3 & Mr. C.A. Chacko for R-4 & 5.)
O.A No. 587/2016
1. L. Sreevidya,
D/o. K. Bhargavan (late),
Postman, Puthuppally (P.O),
Kayamkulam, Mavelikkara Postal Division,
Department of Posts, Residing at :
Kumaranchira House, Prayar South,
Alumpeedika (P.O), Prayar, Kollam - 690 547.
2. D. Ramesan,
S/o. R. Dasan (late),
Postman, Kayamkulam H.O,
Mavelikkara Postal Division,
Department of Posts,
Residing at : Padippurackal Tharayil
223, Kattachira, Pallickal (P.O) - 690 503. \ - Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajithkumar)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by Secretary to
Government, Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 033.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Mavelikkara Postal Division, Mavelikkara - 690 101. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. P.R. Sreejith, ACGSC)
O.A No. 590/2016
1. Sajeevan Rayaroth,
S/o. V. Raghavan,
Postman Cherakkara Post Office,
Residing at Rajeevam, Pathiriyad (P.O),
Kannur - 670 741.
2. Rejisha K.P.,
D/o. Ravi K.P.,
Postman Tiruvangad Post Office,
Residing at Thavandoth House,
Palayad (P.O), Kannur - 670 661.
3. Ajitha Kumari K.V,
D/o. N.N. Othenan,
Postman Temple Gate Post Office,
Residing at Parvathi, Kuthuparamba (P.O),
Kannur - 670 643.
- Applicants
(By Advocate Mrs. R. Jagada Bai)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the Secretary to
Government of India, Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum - 695 033.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thalassery Division, Thalassery - 670 102. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Sinu G. Nath, ACGSC)
OA 591/2016
Rameshan C.G. Aged 47
S/o Govindan P, Postman, Iritty Post Office,
residing at Puzhakkara, Kokkad, Ulikkal PO
Kannur-670705. . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mrs. R. Jagada Bai)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by
the Secretary to Government of India,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2 The Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-33.
3 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thalassery Division, Thalassery-670102.
4 K. Lenil Kumar, aged 42 years,
S/o K.Admanabhan, Postman, Nirmalagiri PO
Thalassery-670701.
Residing at Padmalayam, Nirmalagiri PO
Kannnur.-670701. . . . Respondents
(4th respondent impleaded vide order dated 24.10.2016 in MA 1154/2016)
(By Advocate Mr. P.G. Jayan for R. 1 to 4 & Mr. MA Shafik for R.4)
OA 592/2016
Nikhil N, aged 28, S/o Dhanasekaran,
Multi Tasking Staff, Sub Record Office, Kannur
Railway Mail Service, CT Division,
Residing at Thiruvathira, Edacherry, Pallikunnu Pos,
Kannur.4. . . . Applicant
(BY Advocate Mrs. R. Jagadabhai)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by
the Secretary to Government of India,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2 The Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-33.
3 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Railway Mail Service, CT Division,
Calicut -673 032.
. . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. P.K. Latha)
OA 594/2016
1 Baby Shajina K, aged 34.
D/o Kannan, Postman, Koyilandi Bazar Post Office
residing at Keloth Thazhe Kuni, Muchukunnu PO
Vatakara, Kozhikode.673307.
2 Divya A.M. Aged 32 D/o Nanu, Postman
Kuttiyadi Post Office,
residing at Aneri House,
Paleri PO, Vatakara, Kozhikode-673508. - Applicants
(By Advocate Mrs. R. Jagadabai)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by
the Secretary to Government of India,
Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
2 The Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Trivandrum-33.
3 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Vadakara Division, Vadakara-673101.
... Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Brijesh A.S)
OA 596/2016
1 Vasanthakumari S, MTS, Pattom Palace PO,
Thiruvananthapuram-695006
residing at Quartr No.B31, Kesavadasapuram Postal Quarters,
Thiruvananthapuram-4.
2 Vijayakumar S, MTS, General Post Office,
Thiruvananthapuram-1 residing at Ayilliyam
Sangeetha Nagar -38, Pangappara PO
Thiruvananthapuram.695581.
3 Sajith S.S. MTS, Divisional Office,
Thiruvananthapuram North, residing at
Thalolam, Parayathukavu PO
Kizhuvillam, Thiruvananthapruam.
4 Rajesh R, MTS, Medical College PO
Thiruvananthapuram.11, residing at Manjavila Veedu
Vattavila Junction, Powdikonam PO
Thiruvananthapuram.
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil)
Vs.
1 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapruam North Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapruam-1.
2 The Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.33.
3 Union of India, represented by Secretary &
Director General, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
4 A.S. Sunilkumar, son of Aravindakshan K, aged 46,
Postman, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapruam.4.
5 Shibu S.S. Son of C. Soman, aged 38 years
Postman, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapuram.4.
Residing at Shibu Nivas, Kuttiyani, Panthalacode PO
Thiruvananthapuram.28.
6 Siyad M Son of Mohammed Basheer, aged 36 years
Postman, Alamcode PO, Attingal, Thiruvananthapruam.
Residing at Kunumpurathuveedu, Thencherykonam,
Alamcode PO, Thiruvananthapuram.
7 Preeja T.V. Wife of ratheeshkumar PS, aged 41 years
MTS Trivandrum University PO, Thiruvananthapruam.
Residing at Ratheesh Bhawan, Kizhakkinkara,
Moongodu, PO, Peyad, Thiruvananthapruam.
8 Sajitha Rani S, Daughter of the late Sadasivan,
aged 29 years, Postman, Nalanchira PO, Thiruvananthapuram
residing at Postal Staff Quarters, B-15, Parathipara,
Nalanchira, Thriuvananthapruam.
9 Deepthi S, W/o of Pramod V Raj, aged 39 years
Postman, Nalanchira PO, Thiruvananthapuram residing at
Ananda Bhavan, Pakalkuri PO, Pallickal Kilimanoor,
Thiruvananthapuram.
10 Sujachellan, wife of P.Rajachandran, Departmental Stamp
Vendor, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapruam.4
residing at Anjaneyam, TC 3/1115, Vyasa Nagar,
Pattom PO, Thiruvananthapuram.4.
(Respondents 5 to 10 impleaded as additional respondents vide
order dated 24.10.2016 in MA 1142/2016)
. . . Respondents
(By Advocates Mr. S. Ramesh for R 1 to 3
and Mrs. Rekha Vasudevan for R 4 to 10)
OA 597/2016
1 Prakash K, Postman, General Post Office,
Thiruvananthapuram.1. Residing at Prasadam, Kaniyapuram PO
Thiruvananthapuram.
2 Anu V.S. Postman, Medical College PO, Thiruvananthapruam.11
residing at Ajith Bhawan, Thenoorvilakam,
Inchivila, Parassala PO, Thiruvananthapuram.
3 Saji Godwin, Postman, Kulathoor PO
Thiruvananahrpuam residing at W House, Kodumankulam,
Puthenkurichy PO, Thiruvananthapuram.
4 Letha N, Postman, Vikas Bhawan, PO, Thiruvananthapruam.33
residing at Devi Kripa, Akkottu Veedu, Sarkara,
Chempazhanthi, Thiruvananthapuram.
5 Thaneesha I, Postman, Koodal SO, Pathanamthitta,
residing at Plamthottathil House, Kokkathodu PO
Konny, Pathanamthitta. . . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil)
Vs.
1 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapruam North Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapruam-695001.
2 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Pathanamthitta Postal Division,
Pathanamthitta-689645.
3 The Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.33.
4 Union of India, represented by Secretary &
Director General, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
5 A.S. Sunilkumar, son of Aravindakshan K, aged 46,
Postman, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapruam.4.
6 Shibu S.S. Son of C. Soman, aged 38 years
Postman, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapuram.4.
Residing at Shibu Nivas, Kuttiyani, Panthalacode PO
Thiruvananthapuram.28.
7 Siyad M Son of Mohammed Basheer, aged 36 years
Postman, Alamcode PO, Attingal, Thiruvananthapruam.
Residing at Kunumpurathuveedu, Thencherykonam,
Alamcode PO, Thiruvananthapuram.
8 Preeja T.V. Wife of ratheeshkumar PS, aged 41 years
MTS Trivandrum University PO, Thiruvananthapruam.
Residing at Ratheesh Bhawan, Kizhakkinkara,
Moongodu, PO, Peyad, Thiruvananthapruam.
9 Sajitha Rani S, Daughter of the late Sadasivan,
aged 29 years, Postman, Nalanchira PO, Thiruvananthapuram
residing at Postal Staff Quarters, B-15, Parathipara,
Nalanchira, Thriuvananthapruam.
10 Deepthi S, W/o of Pramod V Raj, aged 39 years
Postman, Nalanchira PO, Thiruvananthapuram residing at
Ananda Bhavan, Pakalkuri PO, Pallickal Kilimanoor,
Thiruvananthapuram.
11 Sujachellan, wife of P.Rajachandran, Departmental Stamp
Vendor, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapruam.4
residing at Anjaneyam, TC 3/1115, Vyasa Nagar,
Pattom PO, Thiruvananthapuram.4.
(Respondents 5 to 11 impleaded as additional respondents vide
order dated 24.10.2016 in MA 1143/2016)
. . . Respondents
(By Advocates Mr. Sreenath S for R 1 to 4 & Mrs. Rekha Vasudevan for R
5 to 11)
OA 598/2016
1 Haritha R.P. Chandran,
Postman, Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapruam.33
residing at Thadatharikathu Veedu, Plamoodu
Pothencode, Thiruvananthapuram.
2 Arun V. Postman, Avananvanchery, Attingal PO
Thiruvananthapuram.13 residing at
Adwaitham, Kittdam Junction,
Kizhakkemele PO, Parippally, Kollam.
3 Biji D.K. Postman, Karamana, Thrivananthapuram.2
residing at Leeja Bhawan, Mangalapuram,
Thonnakkal PO, Thiruvananthapruam.17.
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil)
Vs.
1 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapuram North Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapuram-695001.
2 The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapruam.
3 The Chief Postmaster General
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram.33.
4 Union of India, represented by Secretary &
Director General, Department of Posts, Dak
Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.
5 A.S. Sunilkumar, son of Aravindakshan K, aged 46,
Postman, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapuram.4.
6 Shibu S.S. Son of C. Soman, aged 38 years
Postman, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapuram.4.
Residing at Shibu Nivas, Kuttiyani, Panthalacode PO
Thiruvananthapuram.28.
7 Siyad M Son of Mohammed Basheer, aged 36 years
Postman, Alamcode PO, Attingal, Thiruvananthapuram.
Residing at Kunumpurathuveedu, Thencherykonam,
Alamcode PO, Thiruvananthapuram.
8 Preeja T.V. Wife of ratheeshkumar PS, aged 41 years
MTS Trivandrum University PO, Thiruvananthapuram.
Residing at Ratheesh Bhawan, Kizhakkinkara,
Moongodu, PO, Peyad, Thiruvananthapruam.
9 Sajitha Rani S, Daughter of the late Sadasivan,
aged 29 years, Postman, Nalanchira PO, Thiruvananthapuram
residing at Postal Staff Quarters, B-15, Parathipara,
Nalanchira, Thriuvananthapruam.
10 Deepthi S, W/o of Pramod V Raj, aged 39 years
Postman, Nalanchira PO, Thiruvananthapuram residing at
Ananda Bhavan, Pakalkuri PO, Pallickal Kilimanoor,
Thiruvananthapuram.
11 Sujachellan, wife of P.Rajachandran, Departmental Stamp
Vendor, Pattom Palace PO, Thiruvananthapuram.4
residing at Anjaneyam, TC 3/1115, Vyasa Nagar,
Pattom PO, Thiruvananthapuram.4.
(Respondents 5 to 11 impleaded as additional respondents vide
order dated 24.10.2016 in MA 1137/2016)
. . .Respondents
(By Advocates Mr. T.,C. Krishna, Sr.PCGC for R. 1 to 4
& Mrs. Rekha Vasudevan for R 5 to 11)
OA 611/2016
Rajesh T, S/o Kuttappu (late)
aged 42 years, MTS Tirur HO
Tirur Postal Division, Department of Posts
residing at Thottiyil House
Alathiyur PO, BP Angadi (via)
Malappuram-676102.
. . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. V. Sajith Kumar)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary to Government.
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, New Delhi-110 001
2 The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle,
Trvandrum.33.
3 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tirur Postal Division,
Tirur-676104.
. . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. K.S. Muraleedharan)
OA 620/2016
1 Sumesh P, S/o the late E. Prabhakaran Nair,
Aged 40 years, Pullat House, Padur-Kavasseri Post
Palakkad-678543.
2 A.R. Prakashiny D/o Ramakrishnan
aged 33 years, Chennakode House,
Nochully Post, Koyalmannam
Palakkad-678 702
(Postman, Kuthanur Post)
. . . Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. Raji T. Bhaskar)
Vs.
1 Union of India, represented by Secretary to Government.
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications,
Government of India, New Delhi-110 011
2 The Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle,
Trvandrum.33.
3 Postmaster General, Northern Region,
Kozhikode-11.
4 The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Palakkad Division-678001.
. . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. P.G. Jayan)
O.A No. 623/2016
Senkumar N.V,
Postman, Manacaud Post Office,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 009.
Residing at Sen Nias, Panthakalam,
Kodunganoor, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 013. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil)
Versus
1. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 036.
2. Union of India represented by the
Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Mini R. Menon, ACGSC)
O.A No. 626/2016
G. Pradeep Kumar,
Multi-Tasking Staff,
Thiruvananthapuram GPO,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.,
Residing at Padinjattathil Veedu,
Ayiroor (P.O), Varkala,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 310. - Applicant
(By Advocate Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil)
Versus
1. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thiruvananthapuram North Postal Division,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
2. Union of India represented by the
Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. S. Sreenath, ACGSC)
O.A No. 629/2016
1. Hazeena Beegam K.E,
W/o. Shafik P.P.,
Postman, Head Post Office,
Thiruvalla - 689 101.
Residing at Shahana Manzil, Muthoor (P.O),
Kuttappuzha, Thiruvalla - 689 107.
2. Sheela V.T,
W/o. Kanakarajan,
Postman, Head Post Office,
Thiruvalla - 689 107.
Residing at Pulimparambil House,
Ithithanam (P.O), Kurichi,
Changanacherry - 689 535.
3. Rajimol. M,
W/o. Sanilkumar,
Postman, Head Post Office,
Thiruvalla. Resing at Vanchipurackkal House,
Thakazhi (P.O), Alleppey - 688 562.
- Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. M.R. Hariraj)
Versus
1. Union of India represented by the
Secretary to Government of India,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Post Master General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. Superintendent of Posts,
Thiruvalla Division, Thiruvalla - 689 101. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. K. Kesavankutty, ACGSC)
These applications having been finally heard on 03.11.2016 and
08.11.2016, the Tribunal on 22.11.2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member OA Nos. 596/16, 592/16, 567/16, 586/16, 611/16 & 626/16 are Original Applications filed by the applicants who are working as MTS. Some of them contend that they were appointed against the vacancy of 2009 while others contend that they were appointed against the vacancy of 2010. But they entered service as MTS only after 2010.
2. OA Nos. 555/16, 578/16, 587/16, 594/16, 572/16, 598/16, 597/16, 582/16, 581/16, 591/16, 575/16, 577/16, 576/16, 585/16, 584/16, 590/16, 629/16, 583/16, 620/16 and 623/16 are Original Applications filed by Postman working at different places who entered service as Postman in the year 2013. Some of the applicants contend that they were appointed against the vacancies of the year 2011 while others contend that they were appointed against the vacancies of 2012.
3. Some of the applicants in these cases were appointed to the service as Postman with effect from 31.01.2013. They were selected against 2011 vacancies. The respondents notified the LGO Examination for promotion to the cadre of Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant for the year 2015-16. The vacancies upto March 2016 are offered for LGO examination. Notification has been issued to that effect. The examination was scheduled to be held on 31.07.2016. As regards Postman, the eligibility criteria is that he should have completed three years of regular service as on 01.04.2015 to make him eligible to take part in the examination. Some of the other applicants are MTS. The eligibility condition for MTS to take part in the examination is that he should have completed 5 years regular service as MTS as on the relevant date; namely 01.04.2015. The applicants contend that they were selected as Postman against 2011 vacancies and since there is a binding decision on the point that the respondents are bound to count the notional service from the date of occurrence of vacancies for the purpose of taking part in the departmental competitive examination vide order in O.A No. 773/2012 and other cases, the respondents cannot deny the applicants their right to take part in the examination. Such a relief was given on the basis of old recruitment rules. They further contend that respondents are disputing the eligibility of the applicants contending that they are short of service to reach the minimum eligibility criterion ignoring the binding judgment rendered against them. The applicants could have got appointment as Postman in 2011 itself but it was only due to delay on the part of the department to hold the examination in time, as per the standing instruction regarding promotion to the post of Postman they were denied opportunity to get appointment as Postman in 2011 itself. If notional service is reckoned from 2011 the date of arising of vacancy all the applicants/Postman would acquire three years service as on 01.04.2015 and so the respondents will not be justified in denying opportunity to the applicants to take part in the examination.
4. The claim is strongly opposed by the respondents contending as follows:
5. The cut off date is fixed as 01.04.2015 for filling up of the vacancies for the period 2015-16 as per Annexure R-1 O.M of DoP&T dated 28.05.2014. All the applicants joined as Postman only in January 2013. The Postman examination for the year 2011 was held on 06.01.2013. The Postman examination 2011 was held in the year 2013 not only in Kerala Circle but also in all the postal circles of India as per the directions contained in the letter issued by the office of the first respondent vide Annexure R-2 dated 18.10.2012. It was addressed to all the postal circles in India. The contention that it was due to the negligence of the respondents that the examination for the year 2011 was not conducted is not true. The revised pattern and syllabus was released for filling up postman vacancies under examination quota for the year 2011 and so on the basis of Annexure R-2 letter the respondents in Kerala Postal Circle quickly issued notification to conduct the examination. That examination was conducted on 6.1.2013 as per the directions of the Directorate after receipt of revised pattern and syllabus uniformly throughout India. The judgments/orders relied upon by the applicants are not applicable to the facts of this case. A vacancy cannot be filled up on the date of occurrence of vacancy itself but can be filled up only after following the prescribed procedure stipulated in the recruitment rules. A promotion takes effect only from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of post. An employee does not have an indefeasible right to promotion.
6. The LGO examination 2015-16 was held on 31.07.2016. The Postman and MTS (erstwhile Group-D) officials applied to appear for examination to become Postal Assistant. It is contended by the respondents that the Recruitment Rule specifies minimum service of 3 years as Postman and 5 years as MTS to become eligible to write the examination. According to them such a restriction is imposed since only if they have the service for the period as mentioned, they can acquire the experience to discharge their duty well in the higher post to which they are to be promoted. It is also contended that such employees can write the examination eight times. Only if they fail in the examination on the eighth chance they cannot write thereafter. Admittedly, there is no promotion under seniority quota alone. The respondents would further contend that the applicants who had not worked for three years as Postman or who have not worked as MTS for five years cannot aspire for the post nor can they write the examination since they will not satisfy the prescribed experience/eligibility condition. According to the respondents, the applicants in these cases are having eight number of chances before them to write the examination immediately after they acquire the eligibility service; namely, when they acquire three years regular service as Postman or five years regular service as MTS and so it is not a case where they are denied the right or sufficient number of chances to write the examination to become Postal Assistant. Even if they fail once, they can continue to write the examination upto the 8 th chance. So far as the party respondents are concerned, most of them had written seven times but could not succeed in the examination, it is stated. If the number of candidates is increased by allowing all the Postman/MTS on the ground that they were selected for the earlier vacancies then the chance of the private respondents would get doomed or jeopardized. According to those employees some of them, who got themselves impleaded as additional respondents, a bottle neck has been created by persons like the applicants who wanted to get persons like the supplemental respondents elbowed out by intruding into the eligibility line to push down candidates like the respondents. Those private respondents would contend that it is not a case where the applicants will not get any opportunity at all to write the examination. But on the other hand, it is a case where if the applicants are allowed to write the examination then persons like the supplemental respondents will be kicked out by the applicants for ever which will enable the applicants to steal a march over persons like the supplemental respondents. That would actually lead to negation of justice, the supplemental respondents and the official respondents in unison urge before this Tribunal.
7. If the illegal claim of the applicants is allowed those officials (additional respondents) who will be having only this examination as the last chance, will certainly be thrown out as some of the applicants who have been provisionally permitted to write the examination, could pass the examination, and so they will come in the selection zone negativing the chances of candidates like the additional respondents. According to the respondents the prayer made by the applicants in all these cases is against the recruitment rule and will create major impact or stalemate in selection of the candidates who are actually entitled to get the appointment as Postman as they are persons who had the required eligibility condition of regular service as Postman or MTS for more than three years or five years as the case may be.
8. It is also argued on behalf of the respondents that the question of relaxation does not arise at all in cases like this since the applicants and other persons would get eight opportunity to write the examination immediately after the completion of three years regular service as Postman or five years service as MTS.
9. The learned counsel for the applicants in all these cases would submit that had the right thing been done at the right time then there would have been no difficulty at all. This plea is projected on the premise that if the vacancies of 2010 and 2011 in the category of Postman were filled at least by the end of 2011 all those employees would have become Postman in 2011 itself; or at any rate before 01.04.2012 in which case it would have been possible for them to acquire the eligibility service of three years as on 01.04.2015 which is the cut off date mentioned in the notification. Similar is the case with respect to MTS; if they had been promoted as MTS when there were such vacancies in 2009 it would have been possible for those employees to become MTS by the end of 2009 or at any rate before 1.4.2010 in which case the eligibility of regular service of 5 years would have been available to those persons shown as MTS. It is also contended that the delay in the conduct of the examination for appointment as Postman or MTS cannot be attributed to the applicants or persons similarly placed but the delay did occur only due to the laziness or lethargy on the part of the respondent department for which the persons like the applicants cannot be penalised. The argument is so attractive.
10. At the first blush it may persuade the court to allow their request. But this Tribunal has to see the other side of the coin as well. We cannot lose sight of the sobbing mind of persons like the private respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the applicants that it is for that purpose the notional service is requested to be reckoned but only for the purpose of counting the qualifying service, so as to enable all the applicants to write the examination. It is further submitted that after all, only those candidates who could perform well in the written examination can come through and so the department will not suffer, but on the other hand, the department will get more knowledgeable, intelligent and efficient candidates, which will only be beneficial and advantageous to the department instead of getting persons who are less qualified, less efficient and less intelligent persons. According to applicants, if their notional service; namely from the date of arising of vacancy is reckoned, all these applicants would get the eligibility service of three years or five years as the case may be, which according to them will not in any way affect the right of other candidates who had been appointed as Postman or MTS prior to 2011 or 2009 as the case may be. Though the plea appears to be so innocuous it is actually not so, the respondents contend. The plea so raised by the applicant would negate the private respondents' chance of getting selected as Postal Assistants as there would be many more contestants or candidates to get selected, in which case, persons who got lesser marks (though they might have acquired the pass mark) would be pushed down as there would be persons like applicants who might have scored more marks than the party respondents. As stated earlier, it is not a case where there would be total negation of justice as far as the applicants are concerned since they can very well write the examination in the coming years as they have got eight chances to write the examination. The examination which they had just now written as permitted by this Tribunal, will not be reckoned as an attempt made by them at all as they had not acquired the eligibility service for writing the examination.
11. It is argued on behalf of some of the applicants who are erstwhile Group D employees now working in the category of MTS that this Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala have taken the view that the appointment of Group D is by way of promotion and so clearance from the screening committee was not necessary. One of the decisions on the point is WP(C) 22818/2016 which was followed by another Division Bench in WP(C) 32491/2009 and other cases which were disposed of as per a common judgment dated 23.12.2009. That judgment became final as between the respondents and the petitioners therein and so the respondents cannot now contend that appointment of GDS employees as Group D/MTS is not by promotion, it is argued. It is contended that the Hon'ble High Court had taken the view that no clearance from the screening committee was required for filing up the post of Group D. The instructions on the point issued by the Government were meant to be only in respect of appointment by direct recruitment. Thus it is argued that so far as the applicants, who are MTS are concerned, they must be deemed to have been appointed on the dates when the respective vacancies arose and if that be so, since the applicants were appointed as against the vacancies of 2009 or 2010 the respondents cannot now contend that they have not acquired the eligibility service of 5 years as on 1.4.2015,
12. Undisputedly all those applicants/employees (MTS) joined the service only in 2013. In other words, if regular service is reckoned only from the date of appointment/joining service, they do not acquire the five years service as MTS as on 1.4.2015. Therefore, if that date of appointment is reckoned all those applicants must be held to have not satisfied the eligibility condition, namely the required service of 5 years as MTS as on 1.4.2015, the cut off date shown in the notification. It is to overcome that difficulty those applicants contend that so far as Group D/ MTS are concerned since the Hon'ble High Court has held in the various cases that the appointment of group D is not by direct recruitment but by promotion, there would be no difficulty for the Tribunal to hold that their appointments should be reckoned with effect with effect from the date of arising of vacancy, some of which arose in 2009 and some vacancies arose in 2010. If the appointments were made against the vacancies which arose subsequent to 1.4.2010 then those applicants cannot, even accepting their case, contend that they have acquired the 5 years regular service as MTS as on 1.4.2015. It is argued on behalf of the applicants that since those decisions became final respondents cannot contend otherwise.
13. It is argued on behalf of the additional respondents who got impleaded in the matter that those orders are not binding so far as the private respondents are concerned, since they were not parties to those litigations. It is also contended that there can be no estoppel if the statutory rule or the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated otherwise since that should be treated as the law of the land. There can be no estoppel against the statute/law. It is also trite law there can be no res judicata against a question of law (vide the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mathura Prasad Sarjoo Jaiswal and others Vs. Dossibai N.B.Jeejeebhoy--AIR 1971 SC 2355 which was followed in Isabella Johnson (Smt) Vs. MA Susai (Dead) by Lrs - (1991) 1 SCC 494.)
14. On the strength of the interim orders passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid O.As, all of them were permitted to write the LGO Examination 2015-16 held on 31.7.2016. It is stated that out of those applicants, 44 applicants could succeed in the examination. It is also stated that out of 44 applicants who passed the examination 12 are candidates who are now working as MTS, who entered service in 2013 but who were selected against vacancies of 2010. 20 candidates (applicants) who could succeed in the examination joined service as Postman in 2013 but they were appointed against the vacancies of 2011. 9 Postman out of successful candidates who entered service in 2013 were appointed against the Postman vacancy of 2012.
15. Among the applicants in the O.As the following are the persons who passed the LGO examination held on 31.7.2016. The last column shows the post they are now held (MTS/Postman) and the vacancy year to which they were appointed:
Sl.No. Name OA No.
1 Rajesh R 596/16 MTS 2010
2 Jayaraj N Nair 585/16 MTS 2010
3 Vinu M Vijayan 585/16 MTS 2010
4 Rakhi K.Sreedevi 585/16 MTS 2010
5 Ashamol VD 567/16 MTS 2010
6 Molly George 600/26 MTS 2010
7 Deepa KR 586/16 MTS 2010
8 Rajeshwari V 585/16 MTS 2010
9 Jiji MT 622/16 MTS 2010
10 Rajesh T 611/16 MTS 2010
Sl.No. Name OA No.
11 NV Krsihnan 612/16 MTS 2010
12 N.Nikhil 592/16 MTS 2010
13 Biji DK 598/16 Postman 2011
14 Senkumar NV 623/16 Postman 2011
15 Arun V 598/16 Postman 2011
16 Bindhu Bhaskar 572/16 Postman 2011
17 Supriya P Nair 581/16 Postman 2011
18 Rajimol M 629/16 Postman 2011
19 Nithya Soman 575/16 Postman 2011
20 BinuCR 575/16 Postman 2011
21 Indhukala CS 577/16 Postman 2011
22 Sreeprabha G Nair 577/16 Postman 2011
23 Viny V.Kallayl 578/16 Postman 2011
24 Sathidevi VV 578/16 Postman 2011
25 Deepthi M 555/16 Postman 2011
26 Laiju CM 555/15 Postman 2011
27 AR Prakashini 620/16 Postman 2011
28 Sumesh P 620/16 Postman 2011
29 K.Rajan 580/16 Postman 2011
30 Divya AM 594/16 Postman 2011
31 Ajtha Kumari KV 590/16 Postman 2011
32 MC Madhavankutty 582/16 Postman 2011
33 Anu VS 597/16 Postman 2012
34 Shaji Godwin 597/16 Postman 2012
35 Somya SD 583/16 Postman 2012
36 Sreevidya L 587/16 Postman 2012
37 D.Ramesan 587/16 Postman 2012
38 Sreekanth S 584/16 Postman 2012
39 Ramesan CG 591/16 Postman 2012
40 Iswara Naik A 582/16 Postman 2012
41 Manju K Thankappan 584/16 Postman 2012
Shanil TB (OBC) 630/16 No objection to
regularize his
provisional
candidature in the
light of disposal of
SLP (Civil Appeal
42 No.90/2015)
Sl.No. Name OA No.
KA Anaichan 575/16 No objection to
regularize the
43 cndidate
Rajesh V 588/16 Objected. Separate
44 Sheet attached.
16. It is not disputed that the vacancy year which was earlier
designated as calender year has now been uniformly changed to financial year in all Central Government Departments as per Govt. of India OM dated 28.5.2014. The LGO examination was conducted for filling up vacancies for the year 2015-16. The applicants wanted to contend that this examination was conducted for two years; namely 2015 and 2016 in one go. That is absolutely incorrect, the respondents contend. It was shown as 2015-16 in view of the shifting of the recruitment year from January to April, which necessitated to incorporate the period from 1.1.2015 to 31.3.2015 in the year 2015-16 failing which the transition period would go unrepresented. Therefore, it is not a case where the recruitment for two years was combined in one go. So much so the contention that there was no recruitment earlier and the recruitment for two years is conducted in one go is not correct.
17. The applicants contend that had the respondents held the examination as per periodicity schedule the applicants would have been in position in the qualifying post from an earlier period and thus they blame the official respondents for the delay in their selection. It is pointed out by the official respondents that the sixth CPC brought a substantial increase in the pay structure. It also brought about certain changes to be incorporated in the recruitment rules to fit in with the revised pay structure. According to the respondents, it was a time consuming exercise which had to be undertaken as per the directions of the Government of India. Therefore, according to the respondents, the recruitment rules have to be amended, incorporating the direction contained in the 6 th CPC recommendations and after the exercise regarding the same was completed the recruitment had to be made. It is further pointed out that it had to be done with its own revised pattern and syllabus for examination. Once the pattern is changed; namely by introducing OMR sheets etc., it is not something which can be done overnight. So many procedural formalities are to be complied with in the matter. The revision of recruitment rules was not undertaken by Kerala Circle alone but it was done by the Postal Directorate at Delhi for all the circles in India and so it is not applicable to the applicants from Kerala State only but for all the applicants all over India who have participated in similar examinations in their respective circles/states. What all things were to be done in order to change the pattern and syllabus for examination are not matters to be now gone into after several years since the applicants did not question the same in 2013 when they joined the service or at an earlier date. Therefore, it is contended by the respondents that the contention that it was due to the negligence, laxity or lethargy of the official respondents, the examination was not conducted in time and so the applicant should be deemed to have been in service since the date of arising of vacancy is only to be discountenanced. When necessary changes in the pattern and syllabus had to be done in tune with the change of recruitment rules, the contention raised by the respondents that the appointment of the applicants should have been done as and when the vacancy arose cannot be accepted at all.
18. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmal Chandra Sinha vs. Union of India - (2008) 14 SCC 29 has also been referred to in this connection where it was held:
'11.- - - - When the rule requires two years actual service in the lower post before a person can be considered for promotion as General Manager, that rule cannot be violated by considering a person who has not put in two years service in the lower post. Moreover in the aforesaid decision in Union of India V B. S. Agarwal(supra), the respondent had not actually been promoted as General Manager, but he only claimed that he was eligible to be considered for promotion as General Manager.'
19. In that case the appellant therein Shri Nirmal Chandra Sinha was promoted as General Manager on 29.11.1996 but he claimed that he should be deemed to have been promoted with effect from 13.3.1996 with consequential benefits. It was held by the apex court that the said relief cannot be granted to him since it is the settled law that the date of occurrence of vacancy is not relevant for this purpose.
20. Even de hors all these contentions, the plea now advanced by the applicants cannot be sustained in the blazing light of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Najithamol Y. and others Vs. Soumya S.D and others -(2016) 4 KHC 280. Najithamol was a case which arose out of the common judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. In that case the Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the C.A.T Ernakulam Bench which held that the appointment from GDS/EDA to the post of Postman is only by way of promotion and not direct recruitment. There was an earlier Full Bench decision rendered by this Tribunal on 3.11.1999 in OA 807/1999 holding that the appointment of EDA to the post of Postman was by way of direct recruitment and not by promotion. But that decision was distinguished by this Tribunal stating that the question before the Full Bench was with respect to filling up of 25% of total vacancies notified for the post of Postman, which were to be filled up on the basis of seniority and thus it pertained to column 11(2)(i) of the recruitment rules whereas the controversy in the case dealt with in that case (Najithamol's case) was with respect to the other 25% of the total vacancies which were to be filled on the basis of merit in the departmental examination and thus it was held by this Tribunal that it pertains to column 11(2)(ii) and not 11(2)(i). That was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court concurred with the view taken by this Tribunal. It was that judgment which was taken up in Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which rendered the judgment in Najithamol's case cited supra. It was held therein that Extra Departmental Agents are not in the regular service of the Postal Department though they hold a civil post and thus by no stretch of imagination can the post of GDS be envisaged to be a feeder post to Group C posts for promotion. It was held that the appointment as Postman is only by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. Since it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the position of the Gramin Dak Seveaks (GDS) is clear that they are not the feeder categories of Group D or Postman, the appointment as Postman is only by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion.
21. The question of law which arose before the apex court for consideration in Najithamol was whether the appointment of the appellants therein to the post of Postman was by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion. If it was by direct recruitment then the applicants herein would get appointment as she belonged to OBC. That was denied earlier on the ground that it was a case of promotion where the reservation for OBC candidates is not available. After careful consideration of the relevant rules it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that essentially two pools are envisaged from which appointment to the post of Postman can be made; one is the pool of those candidates who are being promoted and the other is the pool of EDAs who are appointed to the said post after passing a departmental examination. It was found that 50% of the candidates being appointed to the post of Postman are selected by way of promotion and the remaining 50% of candidates were selected in two ways; 25% of the candidates are selected from among the EDAs on the basis of their seniority in service and the other 25% candidates are selected from the EDAs based on their merit in the departmental examination.
22. The post in quetion involved or considered in Najithamol was that of Postman in a Group C post and so it was held that promotion to that post can happen only from the feeder post which in the instant case are Group D posts. Admittedly GDS is not a Group D post and members of GDS are merely Extra Departmental Agents. We are discussing this issue more particularly since there is a case advanced by the learned counsel appearing for some of the applicants who are MTS (who were also provisionally permitted to write the examination to the post of Postal Assistant). The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for those applicants is that the decision in Njithamol cannot be made applicable to that of MTS because the decision in Najithamol was only pertaining to the post of Postman and not with respect to the post of MTS. But the basic feature or fundamental fact is that GDS is not a Group D post. Members of GDS are merely Extra Departmental Agents. Therefore, their appointment to MTS also cannot be stated to be that of a promotion from GDS because GDS is not a feeder post for promotion to MTS/Group D.
23. The oft quoted decision in CC Padmanabhan and others Vs. Director of Public Instructions - AIR 1981 SC 64 was referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Najithamol. In CC Padmanabhan and others it was held:
'This definition fully conforms to the meaning of 'promotion' as understood in ordinary parlance and also as a term frequently used in cases involving service laws. According to it a person already holding a post would have a promotion if he is appointed to another post which satisfies either of the following two conditions, namely-
(i) that the new post is in a higher category of the same service or class of service;
(ii) the new post carries a higher grade in the same service or class.' It was held in Nijthamol that promotion to a post can only happen when the promotional post and the post being promoted from are part of the same class of service. GDS is a civil post but is not a part of the regular service of the Postal Department, it was held by the apex court. The decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Kameswar Prasad - 1997 (11) SCC 650 and Superintendent of Post Offices and others Vs. PK Rajamma - (1977) 3 SCC 94 were also referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Najithamol. After survey of all the decisions, it was held by the apex court that a perusal of the judgments referred to above make it clear that Extra Departmental Agents are not in the regular service of the Postal Department though they held a civil post. It was held:
'A perusal of the above judgment of this courts make it clear that Extra Departmental Agents are not in the regular service of the Postal Department, though they hold a civil post. Thus by no stretch of imagination can be the post of GDS be envisaged to be a feeder post to Group C posts for promotion.'
24. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC Padmanabhan and others (supra) which was quoted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is also extracted here which is as under:
'Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Padmanabhan and Ors. v. Director of Public Instructions and Ors., 1980 (Suppl.) SCC 668=1981(1) SLJ 165 (SC), observed that 'Promotion' as understood in ordinary parlance and also as a term frequently used in cases involving service laws means that a person already holding a position would have a promotion if he is appointed to another post which satisfies either of the two conditions namely that the new post is in higher category of the same service or class. Applying the above criteria appointment as Postman from EDA cannot be termed as promotion as the posts of Postman and EDA belong to two different services viz. regular Postal Service' and 'Extra Departmental Postal Service.''
25. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Full Bench of this Tribunal in the earlier case; namely OA 807 of 1999 dated 3.11.1999 was clearly adjudicating the broader question, whether the appointment of ED Agents to the post of Postman is by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion. The attempt to distinguish the ratio of the Full Bench of the Tribunal on such a superficial ground is akin to reading the decision of the Full Bench like a statute, which cannot be sustained, it was observed. Thus ultimately after survey of the entire judgments on the point it was held by the apex court in Najithamol that the recruitment of the GDS to the post of Postman is only by way of direct recruitment and not by way of promotion. In the light of the decision so rendered by the apex court that the appointment of GDS as Postman is only by way of direct recruitment and not by promotion, all the other decisions rendered by the Tribunal cannot come to the help of the applicants herein. The contention that some of those decisions attained finality also cannot set at naught the judgment rendered by the apex court. Not only that, in the decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court earlier, the private respondents herein were not parties. Be that as it may, when the law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the earlier decisions rendered by the Tribunal or by the Hon'ble High Court cannot be pressed into service at all.
26. The contention raised by the applicants is that their appointment can be ante-dated from the date of occurrence of vacancy. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Parkash Gupta and others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir - (2000) 7 SCC 561. It was held therein:
'Point 4 :
direct recruits cannot claim appointment from date of vacancy in quota before their selection :
80. We have next to refer to one other contention raised by the respond-ents- direct recruits. They claimed that the direct recruitment appointment can be antedated from the date of occurrence of a vacancy in the direct recruitment quota, even if on that date the said person was not directly recruited. It was submitted that if the promotees occupied the quota belonging to direct recruits they had to be pushed down, whenever direct recruitment was made. Once they were so pushed down, even if the direct recruit came later, he should be put in the direct recruit slot from the date on which such a slot was available under direct recruitment quota.
81. This contention, in our view, cannot be accepted. The reason as to why this argument is wrong is that in Service Jurisprudence, a direct recruit can claim seniority only from the date of his regular appointment. He cannot claim seniority from a date when he was not born in the service. This principle is well settled. In N.K. Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, [1977] 1 SCC 308 (at p.321) Krishna Iyer, J. stated :
'later direct recruit cannot claim deemed dates of appointment for seniority with effect from the time when direct recruitment vacancy arose. Seniority will depend upon length of service.' Again, in A. Janardhana v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 936, it was held that a later direct recruit cannot claim seniority from a date before his birth in the service or when he was in school or college. Similarly it was pointed out in A.N. Pathak v. Secretary to the Government, [1987] Suppl. SCC 763 (at p.767) that slots cannot be kept reserved for the direct recruits for retrospective appointments.'
27. The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that the aforesaid decision cannot be made applicable since the earlier decisions which were referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Parksah Gupta was with respect to the claim of seniority. That argument is too fallacious to be countenanced. Though seniority was also a point in issue in some of the decisions, the ratio enunciated in all these decisions is that direct recruits cannot get their appointment ante-dated from the date of occurrence of vacancy in the direct recruitment quota. Therefore, the argument vehemently advanced by all the counsel appearing for the applicants that the appointment of the applicants who are Postman should be ante-dated to the date of occurrence of vacancy cannot be sustained at all. The further argument that had their appointment been done as and when vacancy arose they would have satisfied the eligibility condition/required regular service of three years and so there was negation of justice is found to be totally untenable. As has been stated earlier it is not a case where the applicants do not get any opportunity to write the examination at all. They have eight chances ahead of them to write the examination. In other words, it is not a case where the applicants are simply thrown out from the arena of the LGO examination. Their chances are not at all affected.
28. It is not disputed that the authorities concerned had absolutely no bias or prejudice or ill-will towards any of the applicants or to see that such persons should not be allowed to write the examination but the applicants contend that there was lethargy in the conduct of the Postman examination in 2011-2012. As has been pointed out earlier the delay occurred because of plausible and explainable reasons. It is pointed out that in OA 320/2012 filed by one Riyas TM it was held by this Tribunal that in the event, examination could not be conducted in the vacancy year due to a conscious decision taken uniformly throughout the country due to revision of recruitment rules, no claim can be raised by the applicants. It is settled law that a promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date of occurrence of vacancy or creation of posts. Since the applicants are direct recruits they cannot claim deemed dates of appointment or get their dates of appointment ante-dated even for counting the regular service since so far as direct recruits are concerned the date of service commences only from the date they actually join the service and not on a date prior to the same. Since the applicants have not acquired the regular service of three years as Postman their contention that they should be held to have occupied the post from the date of occurrence of vacancy or at any rate before 1.4.2012 must fall to the ground.
29. Strenuous argument has been addressed by the learned counsel for the applicants (who are MTS) that the decision in Najithamol cannot be made applicable to MTS. Though in Najithamol the appointment of GDS as Postman was the core issue the principle laid down is equally applicable to the appointment of GDS to Group D/MTS. There is one more aspect. If the appointment of GDS to Group D/MTS is taken as an exception then it will lead to a situation where the persons who got appointment as Postman from GDS will be denied the right to write the examination whereas GDS who were appointed as Group D/MTS will be stepping ahead of or jumping the queue even pushing down the Postman and will write the examination and become Postal Assistant. That is not thought of or contemplated by the authorities concerned. Not only that, the principle laid down in Najithamol that GDS are not in the regular service of the Postal Department and so they are not the feeder category of Postman would certainly be made applicable to the case of the applicants who are Group-D/MTS. It has been held that promotion to a post can only happen when the promotional post and the post being promoted from are part of the same class of service. When GDS is not part of the same service and is not a feeder category the contentions vehemently advanced on behalf of the applicants/MTS that the decision in Najithamol is not applicable to them cannot be countenanced. 30 Therefore, we find no merit in the contention that the appointment of the applicants should be antedated to the date of occurrence of vacancy. Similarly the contention that they must be deemed to have been in service from the date of arising of vacancy and so the qualifying service/regular service should be counted from the date of occurrence of vacancy so as to enable them to write the examination is found to be devoid of any merit. As such all these applications, except OA 575/2016 to the extent herein below mentioned are found to be devoid of merit and hence all these applications are dismissed.
31. OA 575/2016 is dismissed but only with respect to applicants 1&2. The third applicant KA Aniachan who had passed the examination was within the zone of consideration and in respect of whom orders were already issued by the respondents as directed in the order passed by this Tribunal on 3.11.2016 and he has already been sent for training. Hence so far as the 3rd applicant Aniachan is concerned the respondents will pass consequential orders, if required, after his training is over. There is no order as to costs.
(Mrs. P. Gopinath) (N. K. Balakrishnan) Administrative Member Judicial Member kspps