Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Unknown vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary on 20 September, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Order reserved on: 17.09.2013 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 753- PB of 2013 Chandigarh, this the 20TH day of September , 2013 CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER(J) HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A) Balwinder Singh s/o Sh. Jagmohan Lal r/o Village Bladdi Kalan Tehsil & Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib. APPLICANT BY ADVOCATE: SHRI ABHISHEK ARORA VERSUS 1.Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Central Department of IT, New Delhi. 2.Chief Post Master, General Punjab Circle, Sector 17-C, Chandigrh. 3.The Assistant Superintendent Post Master, Rajpura Sub Division, PIN 140021. 4.The Senior Superintendent Post, Patiala Divison, PIN 1470024 5.Krishan Lal, EDA Danghari, District Fatehgarh Sahib. RESPONDENTS BY ADVOCATE: SH. SURESH VERMA PROXY COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ORDER
HONBLE MS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER(A):-
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
That in view of the submissions made in para nos. 4 & 5, the respondents may kindly be directed not to terminate the services of the applicant.
2. It has been averred in the O.A. that applicant was initially appointed on the post of EDDA/Postmaster on 17.2.2009 at Balari Kalan in District Fatehgarh Sahib and is still working there. In 2009, the contract of the applicant was terminated and one Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, EDDA, was posted at Balari Kalan on transfer from Mubarkpur (Derabassi). In 2010, in the course of an Inspecton, it was found that Sh. Sukhwinder Singh was wrongly shifted from Mubarkpur (Derabassi) as his post was not transferable and he was sent back to his original place of posting. The applicant was asked to join duty at Balari Kalan. However, the applicant had now been orally informed that his service at Balari Kalan would be terminated as one Sh. Krishan Lal, EDDA, was being shifted to Balari Kalan from Dangeri, Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. In the ground for relief it has been claimed that oral intimation regarding termination of the service of the applicant was illegal since Sh. Krishan Lal, private respondent no.5 was holding a non-transferable post and thus was not entitled to be shifted to Balari Kalan. Hence this O.A.
4. In the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the applicant was engaged as a Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) now re-designated as Gramin Dak Sewak Mail Deliver (GDSMD) as a stop gap arrangement and he had worked with the department from time to time with breaks as under:-
Engagement from Engagement upto Place Break in engagement 17.2.2009 31.7.2009 Balhari Kalan BO 1 year, 5 months & 12 days 13.1.2011 14.7.2011
-do-
1 month & 22 days 07.9.2011 30.11.2011
-do-
10 days 11.12.2011 14.03.2012
-do-
17 days 01.04.2012 30.06.2012
-do-
77 days.
From the statement, it was evident that the period of employment of the applicant was not continuous. It has further been stated that the applicants services had to be discontinued as a regular hand Sh. Krishan Lal, private respondent no. 5, had joined at Branch Post Office as EDDA (now GDSMD) vide order dated 13.2.1995 ( Annexure R/1-2). Earlier on the request of respondent no. 5 in the year 2001, he was transferred to Branch Office Dangerian to which place he belonged. Since a regular Branch Postmaster (BPM) was not available there and the work of BPM & GDSMD was being looked after by respondent no. 5, after appointment of a regular BPM at Dangerian, as the workload was not sufficient for two persons, the service of respondent no.5 became spare and he was sent back to his parent posting at Balhari Kalan Branch Post Office vide order dated 16.7.2012 where the applicant was working as substitute under stop gap arrangement (Annexure R/1-3). In view of this position, it was clear that the engagement of the applicant who was working as substitute at Balhari Kalan Branch Post Office had to be discontinued on the joining of the regular hand i.e. respondent no.5. Hence it has been prayed that there was no merit in this O.A. and the same deserved to be dismissed.
5. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant were heard. Learned counsel reiterated the grounds taken in the O.A. and stressed that no written order had been passed, terminating the services of the applicant. The post of EDDA was a non-transferable one and his service had been terminated only to oblige one Sh. Sukhwinder Kumar, but in September 2010 he was reinstated in the job. Since again his services were being terminated with a view to adjust one Sh. Krishan Lal, private respondent no 5, the applicant was being unfairly treated and he should therefore be reinstated as EDDA, Balari Kalan.
6. None was present on behalf of the respondents, hence while proceeding under Rule 16 of the Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1987, we have gone through the written statement available on record.
7. It is observed from the Annexure R-1/2 that Sh. Krishan Lal has been appointed as EDDA Balari Kalan (Sirhind) w.e.f. 10.10.1985 and on 16th July, 2012 an order (Annexure R-1/3) was issued, para 2 wherein reads as follows:-
Shri Krishan Lal, earlier looking after the work of GDSBPM, Dangerian will now look after the work of GDSMD/C Balhari Kalan i.e. his parent post and the substitute arrangement of GDSMD/C Balhari Kalan BO is hereby discontinued with immediate effect. Hence, it is clear that the parent post of Sh. Krishan Lal, private respondent no.5 was GDSMD/C Balhari Kalan and although he was earlier looking after the work of GDSBPM Dangerian, he was reverted to Dangerian w.e.f. 16.7.2012 when a rearrangement of duties was effected in view of Sh. Gurpreet Singh, GDSBPM being appointed as GDSMD/C Dangerian, B.O. Hence the claim of the applicant that his services had been terminated in order to adjust Sh. Krishan Lal, private respondent no.5 at Balari Kalan is without basis as Balari Kalan is the parent posting of Sh. Krishan Lal. Moreover, the applicant has been working only on contractual basis from time to time and has no continuing right to the post of EDDA (GDSMD). The O.A. is found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(RAJWANT SANDHU)
MEMBER(A)
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER(J)
Dated: .09.2013
`SK