Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Azad Singh vs D/O Post on 24 February, 2020
A vag CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PT > CHANDIGARH BENCH <==" OA, No.60/505/2017 Date of decision: 24.2.2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANIJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (3). HON'BLE MS. NAINI JAYASEELAN, MEMBER (A). 1. Azad Singh, age 55 years son of Sh. Inder Singh, resident of Vikas Nagar, Sonepat, District Sonepat, presently posted as GDS Mail Packer (Group-D) at Post Office, Gohana Road, Sonepat. 2, Ram Tirath age 61 years son of Sh. Bhup Singh, resident of VPO Kakrol, Tehsil and District Sonepat presently posted as GDS BPM (Group D) at Post Office, Kakroi, District Sonepat. 3. Ishwar Singh, age 62 years son of Sh. Munshi Ram resident of VPO Mehlana, Tehsil and District, presented posted as GDS BPM (Group D) at Post OFfice Mehiana, Distrct Sonepat. 4. Daya Nand age 56 years son of Sh. Banwari resident of VPO Kakroi, Tehsil and District Sonepat presently posted as GDS Mail Carrier (Group D) at Post Office, Rattan Garh, District Sonepat. 5. Ram Nath Sharma, age 54 years, son of Sh. Rameshwar Parshad Sharma, resident of VPO Mehlana, Tehsil and District Sonepat, presently posted as GDS Mail Carrier (Group-D) at Post Office, Mehlana, District Sonepat. » APPLICANTS SY: SH. R.K. CHALIONARY VICE SH. JAGBIR MALIK, COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT. YERSUS 1. Union of India through its Secretary cum Director General, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001. 2. Chief Postal Master General, Haryana Circle, 107, The Mall Road, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala-133001. 3. Superintendent of Post Offices, Sonepat Division, Sonepat. . RESPONDENTS BY: SH. ¥.K. ARYA, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS. ORDER (Oral)
EY KAUSHIN, MEMBER, (3):-
1. Present O.A. has been filed by the 5 applicants jointly seeking following reliefs:
*8()) The part of Notification dated 12.12.2020 (Annexure A-6), which deny the applicants Reqular Civil Servants and clearly admit that they are the holder of Civil Post being contradictory in itself as has been held by Hon'bie Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 09.12.2014, which is reproduced as below:-
"Gramin Dak Sewak are holders of Civil Posts but they are outside reguiar Civil Service due to which their appointment will be by direct recruitment."
This part which deny reguiar civil services deserves to be quashed in view of the fact that this makes the holder of Civil Post meaningless though working for more than three decades and full time and are being paid salary as per pay scales with DA, HRA etc. and working for more than 8 hours.
\ The applicants assails the vires of Rule 3A, 6 and 12 of the Department of Pasts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (Annexure A-7}) being unconstitutional, arbitrary, unbridled and uncanalised to the axtent of these rules and which illegally deny the applicants their legitimate expectations as Regular Postal Civil Servants and illegally prohibits the payment of Pension and Gratuity, which the applicants are entitle under the special enactment and the aforesaid rules pertains to denial of Pension and payment of Ex-gratia Gratuity deserves to be quashed.
(iii) Directing the respondents to treat the applicants as whole time in employment and salary to be paid at par with reguiar postal employees including conferment of consequential, monetary benefits, gratuity and pension, seniority since the initial date of appointment and quash the iNegal schemes of non grant of Ex-gratia and Gratuity which is de-hors the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended in 2009 and further to quash introduction of New Service Discharge Benefit Schemes dated 01.9.2010 (Annexure A-
5} and to pay the applicants the Pension as per the provisions of CCS Pension Rules since they are appointed since 1978 under P&T Extra Departmental (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 as amended in the year 2001 and further amended in the year 2011.
(iv) Direct the respondents to restructure/remove the anomalies 'discrepancies in Fifth Pay Commission and Sixth Pay Commission recam mimendation and pay the applicants at par with regular postal civil servants." wns
--
3 | 2. After exchange of pleadings, when matter came up for hearing today, learned counsel for applicants vehemently arqued that the case of applicants is squarely covered by a decision rendered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.749/2015 ttled Vinod Kumar Saxena & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 17.11.2016 and pleaded that present O.A. be also allowed, in the same terrns.
. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents cited a latest judgment in the case of Sr, Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Gursewak Singh & Ors. Civil Appeal No.3151 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7628 of 2019) and submitted that Lordships have already answered the plea raised by the applicants against thern holding that Gramin Dak Sewaks (GDS) are not Govt. employees under Section 3-A of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement} Rules, 2011 and are not eligible for payment of Gratuity under Rules, thus he pleaded that the O.A. be dismissed in view of findings recorded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
. We have gone through the judgment cited by counsel for the respondents where Lordships nave framed question of law in para no.6, which reads as under:-
"6. The issues which arise for consideration are as follows:
6.1. Whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is an 'employee' as per Section 2(é}) of the 1972 Act, and is entitled to payrnent of Gratuity under this Act?
G2. Whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is eligible for payment of Gratuity under the 2011 Rules upon voluntary resignatian?"
G _ Ultimately, after elaborate discussions, it was opined therein that GDS are not Govt. servants and not entitled to benefit provided under the Gratuity Act. Thus, once it has already been held that GDS are not employees of postal department, therefore, they cannot ask for regularization as it has been held that Gramin Dak Sewak are holders of Civil Posts but they are outside the regular Civil Service and shall not be entitled to any benefit available to regular employees.
6. Accordingly, plea of the applicants for regularization cannot be accepted. O.A. is thus dismissed being devoid of merit. No costs. '(NAINI JAYPSEELAN) - (SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER-(A) ,_ eo" MEMBER (3)
- i \e wT a A \ Date: 24.2.2020.
Place: Chandigarh.
'RRS