Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It appears that the Posts and Telegraphs Service Selection Board issued an advertisement inviting applications to fill in 1200 vacancies of clerks in the Posts & Telegraphs Department. The appellant herein, in response to the said advertisement, submitted an application to appear in the competitive examination. The appellant came out successfully in the said examination, but due to want of vacancies he could not be offered appointment in the unit of his choice. However, by a memorandum dated 31-10-1962 he was informed that the Postal Department required a number of clerks for enrolment on deputation in the Indian Army Postal Service and if he was willing to accept the offer he should communicate his willingness by a telegram to be followed by a confirmation in writing. The condition mentioned in the aforesaid memorandum for the said offer of appointment is reproduced below: "From the date of a candidate's enrolment in the Army Postal Service, he will be treated as a clerk of the Posts and Telegraphs Department on deputation to the Indian Army Postal Service...."

3. Clause 4 of this memorandum is as under: "He will be required to serve in the Indian Army Postal Service for a minimum period of three years or for such time as his services may be required in the Army. He will revert to civil appointment in this Department, on release from the Indian Army Postal Service. He will be given a choice to elect the unit in which he would like to serve on reversion to the civil appointment. His rights and interests in the Department during the period of his deputation to the Army Postal Service will be protected."

5. The appellant, after submitting the application for voluntary retirement took a somersault and sought permission to withdraw his application seeking voluntary retirement. Since his representation was not accepted, he filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 6-7-1995 against relinquishment of his commission and repatriation to the Department of Posts and also acceptance of his request to retire voluntarily without rejoining the Department of Posts on relinquishment of commission on 7-10-1995. The appellant in the said writ petition contended that his commission should not be relinquished and he should not be repatriated to the Postal Department and he should rather be allowed to continue in the Army Postal Service. The High Court found that the appellant was not a member of the Armed Forces and his status was that of a civilian in the army service on deputation and, therefore, the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

8. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the High Court or the Central Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the applications of the appellant. This question depends upon the status of the appellant, viz., whether he is an army personnel or a civilian posted on deputation in the army service.

9. As stated above, although the appellant was selected by the Postal Department for appointment to the post of clerk, but he could not be given any appointment due to want of vacancy in the unit of his choice. Under such circumstances, the appellant was offered an appointment to work as a clerk in the Army Postal Service on the condition that he would remain a civilian employee on deputation in the Army. The appellant accepted the aforesaid offer and agreed to the conditions that he would revert to the civil appointment in Posts and Telegraphs Department on his release from the Indian Army Postal Service. With these conditions, the appellant continued to serve in the Army as a permanent employee of the Posts and Telegraphs Department on deputation and was promoted up to the rank of a Major in the Indian Army. However, the appellant was only given a temporary commission and he worked as such till the date when his relinquishment was ordered. The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate that the appellant has a lien with the Posts and Telegraphs Department working on deputation in the Indian Army Postal Service and at no point of time the appellant became a full-fledged army personnel. Since the appellant was not a member of the Armed Forces and continued to work as a civilian on deputation to the Army Postal Service, his case was covered under Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act. In that view of the matter, the High Court was right in rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant, whereas the Central Administrative Tribunal erroneously accepted the claim of the appellant that he is an army personnel. We, therefore, uphold the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Since the appellant while holding civil post was working in the Army Postal Service on deputation, the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the original application filed by the appellant. We accordingly set aside the order dated 31-1-1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and remand the case to it to decide expeditiously Original Application No. 1647 of 1996 of the appellant, on merits.