Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

While so, the 4th respondent herein (CPMG, Trivandrum), vide Memo No.EST/13/4057/02 dated 05.08.2013, passed orders to retrench the 6th respondent who was serving as GDS MC in the Ozhukuparakkal Branch Post Office and he ordered to be redeployed as GDS BPM in the very same post office, against the vacancy occurred on 31.03.2010. It was also simultaneously ordered that the slot of GDS MC would be treated as a skeleton post. Pursuant to the said order, Annexure A7 consequential order was issued by the 3rd respondent/Superintendent of Post Office on 25.05.2015 and the 6th respondent came to be appointed as GDS BPM, also assigning some other duty  to the extent as specified therein.

(ii) Call for the records leading to Annexure A7 and set aside the same to the extent it appoints the 6th respondent as GDS BPM of Ozhukuparakkal Branch Post Office.

(iii) Direct respondents 1 to 4 to appoint applicant as GDS BPM of Ozhukuparakkal Branch Post Office in preference to the 6th respondent.

(iv) Issue any other order, or direction appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

5.The claim was sought to be resisted on the part of the department on various grounds. It was contended in Paragraph 10 of the reply statement that seniority in the provisional engagement had nothing to do with the accommodation of 6th respondent in the vacant post of GDS BPM and that the only consideration was whether he had satisfied the minimum extent of 3 years service, to be redeployed in an alternative post, which in fact was seen satisfied by the 6th respondent. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal observed that, regularisation in the case of 6th respondent had been ordered by the department right from the date of initial engagement; whereas, a differential treatment was taken in respect of the petitioner/applicant, when his regularisation was ordered; which was only from the date of order. This, accordingly was rightly intercepted and the Tribunal ordered that regularisation shall be given to the applicant with effect from the initial  engagement in 2007 itself. However, no benefit was given with regard to the claim for appointment as GDS BPM in the Ozhukuparakkal Branch Post Office, in preference to 6th respondent and this made the petitioner feel aggrieved and hence before this Court by filing Original Petition seeking to displace the 6th respondent from the post of GDS BPM and to accommodate the petitioner in the said slot.

11.The learned counsel for the 6th respondent points out that Annexure A7 was issued only on 25.05.2015 ie., after submitting Annexure A6 application for transfer by the petitioner. Abolishing the post held by the 6th  respondent ie., GDS MC was ordered by the CPMG - the competent authority on 05.08.2013, as discernible from Annexure A7 itself. But, the order to have the post abolished redeploying the 6th respondent could not be effected because of some ongoing litigations in relation with the claim preferred by somebody to get appointed against the slot of GDS in the Ozhukuparakkal Branch Post Office. The hurdles were removed and the order passed by CPMG could be given effect to only subsequently, on 25.05.2015, which is only a consequential order in terms of the order passed by the CPMG on 05.08.2013 and as such, there is absolutely no mala fide exercise of power or authority by the departmental authorities, submits the learned counsel.

12.After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the abolition of the post would result in redeployment of the person; who was occupying the post, against some other similar/available vacancy; subject to the condition that the person who was holding the post abolished was having the requisite extent of 3 years of service. Which  post is to be abolished, whether the post of GDS Male Deliverer (held by the petitioner) or whether the GDS MC held by the 6th respondent, was to be decided by the competent authority, based on relevant facts and figures. It is also a factor to be noted that, even though the CPMG had taken a decision on 05.08.2013 to have the post on GDS MC abolished, ordering redeployment of the 6th respondent, and also ordering the post of GDS MC to be treated as a skeleton post, the same came to be given effect to much later, by passing Annexure A7 order dated 25.05.2015. But by that time, pointing out the adverse circumstances, the petitioner had sought for a transfer as per Annexure A6, which was not dealt with by the 3rd respondent/the Superintendent of Post Office; nor had been forwarded the same to the competent authority CPMG, if it had to be considered only by the CPMG.