All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees Union vs Director General Department of Posts and Others

C.S. Karnan, J.—The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the

respondents relating to the order of the first respondent bearing No. 18-1/2002-WL and Sports dated 3.06.2002 and quash the same and direct

the first to fourth respondents to forthwith grant to the fifth respondent viz. MM 3263 Madurai District Postal Extra Departmental Employees Co-

Operative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., the facility of recovery of monthly instalments towards the loan amounts granted by the said Society from

the pay rolls of the members of the Society. The brief facts of the case is as follows:--

The writ petitioner stated that he is the Secretary of the Southern Region Association namely All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees

Union, (Tamilnadu Circle Southern Region, Madurai). This association affiliated to the National Federation of Postal Employees and is recognized

under the Extra Departmental Agents (Recognition of Association) Rules, 1995. 304 Extra Departmental Employees in the Madurai Division and

Theni Division are members of the said Association. All the 304 members of the Petitioner''s Association are also members of the MM 3263

Madurai District Postal Extra Departmental Employees Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited. The said Society was formed as the

Postal Extra Departmental Staff unlike the Departmental Staff who do not get loans from the Postal Department and do not have any other facility

to obtain loans. The said Society was registered by the Deputy Registrar of the Co-Operative Society, Madurai Circle on 16.07.2001 vide his

order bearing R.C. No. 7712 of 2000 L.D.B(1) and the said Society began functioning on 22.08.2001.

The main objective of the said Society is to give personal loans to its members, the Society can obtain sufficient loan facility from the Madurai

Central District Co-Operative Bank and began granting loans to its members only if the 1st to 4th respondents agreed to issue suitable directions

to the Drawing and Disbursing Officers in the Madurai and Theni Divisions to recover the monthly instalments towards the loans granted from the

pay roll of the concerned employees.

The Petitioner Association expressed their intention to the Co-operative Department to start the 5th respondent Society, pre-condition put forth

by the Department was that the Postal Department must agree to recover the monthly instalments from the pay bill of the loanee employees and the

amount so recovered should be remitted to the Society. Therefore, as the Regional Secretary of the Petitioner Association addressed a letter to the

Post Master General, Southern Region, Madurai on 28.05.2001 in this regard. Thereafter, on 21.06.2001, the Post Master General, Southern

Region, Madurai issued a letter bearing No. TEB/275-4/2001 stating that the Petitioner Association request to recover the due amounts from the

loanee employees and to remit it to the Society could be complied with only if the following documents are produced namely (1) Certificate of

Registration of the Society; and (2) Certificate of Commencement of Business.

Thereafter on 02.09.2001, copies of the said documents were forwarded and the Post Master General, Southern Region, Madurai was

informed that the Society had started functioning with effect from 22.08.2001 and details of the Board of Directors were also furnished. It was also

requested that necessary directions be issued to the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Division and the Superintendent of Post

Offices, Theni Division for recovery from the pay rolls of the Loanee Employees when the Society submits recovery statements to the concerned

Drawing and Disbursing Officers. However, no action was forthcoming pursuant to the said reply. Thereafter, on 17.11.2001, the Union made a

representation to the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai seeking that a discussion be held on the subject in the Four monthly

meetings to be held on 03.01.2002. Again on 31.01.2002, the Circle Secretary of the Union made a representation to the Chief Post Master

General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai in this regard.

On 15.02.2002, the Post Master General, Southern Region, Madurai addressed a letter to the petitioner in his capacity as the Regional

Secretary of the Petitioner Association stating that he has to apply for a ""no objection certificate"" for using the name of the Department in the name

of the Society and also asked him to forward the Bye Laws of the Society. Accordingly, on 12.03.2002, the petitioner sent a reply forwarding the

Bye Laws of the Society and sought that the necessary ""No Objection Certificate"" be issued to the Society. In the said reply, once again, the

Association made a request that necessary permission be accorded for recovery of the dues towards the loan from the pay rolls of the Loanee

employees pointing out that such recovery facilities is available in respect of similarly placed Extra Departmental employees in the State of Kerala

and Andhra Pradesh Circles. On 01.05.2002, the ""no objection certificate"" for the use of the Department''s name in the name of the Society was

issued. However, even thereafter, the 2nd to 4th respondents did not grant us the facility requested for.

The petitioner further submitted that all their representations in this regard had thus been to no avail and it is nearly one year since the Society

began functioning under these circumstances the 1st respondent rejected the Petitioner Association request by his letter dated 03.06.2002 on the

ground that Gramine Dak Sevaks cannot be treated as Central Government employees, hence the Petitioner Association has filed the above writ

petition to quash the 1st respondent''s order and direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant forthwith to the 5th respondent Society namely MM 3263

Madurai District Postal Extra Departmental Employees Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, the facility of recovery of monthly

instalments towards the loan amounts granted by the said Society from the pay rolls of the members of the Society and issue direction to the

respondents. Hence, the above writ petition.

The respondents 1 to 4 have filed a reply affidavit and denied the allegation levelled in the writ petition. The respondent submitted that the Senior

Superintendent of Post Offices, Madurai Division i.e. the 4th respondent herein sent a letter of clarification dated 21.08.2001 to the 3rd

respondent namely Post Master General, Southern Region, on the contention that the Drawing and Disbursing Officers could not give an

undertaking for recovery of loan dues from the Extra Departmental Official and remittance to the Co-Operative Society vide (1) Government of

India''s Decision below Rule 226 of Financial Hand Book Volume I and (2) Gramin Dak Sewak (i.e., GDS) Conduct and Employment Rulings

2001 communicated in the DG (Post)''s Letter No. 22-1/2000 ED and Training dated 24.04.2001. On receipt of required documents from the

petitioner, the 3rd respondent took up the matter with the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, in

respect of recovery of Co-operative dues from the ED Agents (i.e., GDS) and perused the matter by himself in respect of granting No Objection

Certificate to use the Departmental Name in the formation of the Madurai District Postal Extra Departmental Employees Co-Operative Thrift and

Credit Society Limited. The 3rd respondent then issued the No Objection Certificate to the Petitioner Association on 01.05.2002. The 2nd

respondent namely the Post Master General referred the admissibility of recovery of Co-operative Credit Society dues from the salary of GDS''s

to the Director General (Posts), New Delhi, the 1st respondent herein, for clarification. The 1st respondent on the advice of Ministry of Law,

clarified vide Letter No. 18-1/2002 WL and Sports dated 03.06.2002 that ""the rules in question refer only to recoveries from the pay of

Government Servants and the deduction from the Time Related continuity Allowance (TRCA) being paid to Gramin Dak Sewak (GDS''s) would

not be legally permissible as GDS cannot be treated as Central Government Employees"". The petitioner was duly informed on this clarification by

the 3rd respondent vide Letter No. TCB/275-4/2001 dated 21.11.2002.

The respondents further submitted that the petitioner has failed to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Department for utilising the name of

the Department for the formation of ED Credit Society. Only on pointing out of this lapse on 10.07.2001, the petitioner has come up with a

request for ""No Objection Certificate"" on 02.09.2001, but failed to submit the bye-law which was subsequently submitted on 12.03.2002. After

receipt of the above documents, the requested No Objection Certificate was issued on 01.05.2002. On receipt of required documents from the

petitioner, the 3rd respondent took up the matter of recovery of Co-operative dues from the salary of ED Agents (i.e., GDS) with the 2nd

respondent, who in turn had referred the admissibility of such recovery of Co-operative dues to the 1st respondent for clarification. Hence there is

no willful delay on the part of Department.

It is submitted that on receipt of clarification from the 1st respondent that ""the rules in question refer only to recoveries from the pay of

Government servants and the deduction from the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) being paid to Gramin Dak Sewaks (GDSs) would

not be legally permissible as GDS cannot be treated as Central Government Employee"", the 3rd respondent had duly informed this to the

petitioner. Thus, the decision communicated by the Directorate is well bound and within the purview of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules

2001.

The respondents further stated that the action of respondents 1 to 4 in not granting the facility of recovery of Co-operative dues from the salary

of GDS is rule based, well bound and justified in all respects.

It is further submitted that as per Rule 226 of Financial Hand Book Volume I, the obligation on the part of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer

is for recovery of Co-operative dues from the Government Servant and remittance to his Co-operative Society. As per the Gramin Dak Sewak

(GDS) conduct and Employment Rulings 2001 i) A sewak shall be outside the civil service of the Union and ii) A sewak shall not claim to be at

par with the servant of the Government. So, the Ministry of Law has opined that it would not be legally permissible to make any deduction from

the TRCA, being paid to the Gramin Dak Sewaks, as they are not regular Government Employees and are not in receipt of the monthly salary

from the Department. Moreover, recoveries from the pay and allowance of the members of postal society and postman society are being orders as

they are regular department staff covering Civil Services.

It is submitted that the issue of recovery of Co-operative Credit Society dues from the TRCA of GDS''s has been carefully examined by the

1st respondent in consultation with the Branch Secretariat of Ministry of Law, Mumbai and it is seen that recoveries of dues of co-operative

societies in case of Government Servants is regulated by the provision of Rules 559 and Appendix 29 of FHB Volume I. The Ministry of Law has

opined that it would not be legally permissible to make any deduction from the TRCA being paid to the Gramin Dak Sewaks, as they are not

regular Government Employees and are not in receipt of the monthly salary from the Department. Accordingly, the 1st respondent has issued

instructions to all his subordinate units that ""the deductions on account of the dues of the Co-operative Credit Societies should be strictly regulated

as per the provision of aforesaid Financial Head Book provisions"". So, the 1st respondent has applied his mind to the all concerned facts before

coming to the abovesaid conclusion.

Further it is stated that the request of petitioner vide his letter dated 28.05.2001 to the 3rd respondent was upon two aspects, one being the

request for permission to set up Madurai District Extra Departmental Co-operative Credit Society at Madurai and the other being the request for

issuing instruction to the Heads of Postal Divisions at Madurai and Theni to arrange recovery of loan dues of the Society members cum loanees

from their monthly payment (i.e., TRCA). The 3rd respondent vide his letter No. TCB/275-4/2001 dated 21.06.2001 had asked the petitioner to

furnish the Certificate of Registration and the Certificate of commencement of business of the society for complying with the request of petitioner.

On receipt of required Documents from the petitioner, the 3rd respondent pursued the matter in respect of the former request of petitioner by

himself and took up the matter in respect of the latter request of petitioner with the 2nd respondent who, in turn, referred the case to the 1st

respondent. The 1st respondent, after consultation with the Ministry of Law had come to the conclusion of non consideration of the latter request

of petitioner.

The 1st respondent''s conclusion of non consideration of the request of petitioner for arranging recovery of co-operative Society dues from the

TRCA of GDS is well bound and justified in all respects as per the Rules of Department of Posts.

Further the 1st respondent had come to the conclusion of non-consideration of the request of petitioner only after going through the existing

rules and orders in force and also consulting with the Ministry of Law. So, the reason stated in the Impugned Order for rejection of the request of

petitioner is based on Rules of the Department of Posts and therefore justified.

Further the respondents 1 to 4 can act only as per the existing rules and orders in force in respect of any matter arising out of day-to-day

dealings. When the Financial Hand Book provisions and the Gramin Dak Sewak conduct and Employment Rulings do not permit the respondents

to accept the request of petitioner, the question of consideration upon other grounds does not arise at all.

The respondents submitted that as the existing rules and orders are totally against the request of petitioner for recovery of Co-operative

Society dues from the Time Related Compensatory Allowance, being paid to the Gramin Dak Sewaks, the prayer of petitioner in this Writ Petition

i) to issue an AD INTERIM DIRECTION to the respondents 1 to 4 to recover the society dues from the TRCA''s of GDSs and ii) to issue a

WRIT OF CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS calling for the records of respondents relating to letter No. 18-1/2002-WL and Sports dated

03.06.2002, quashing the same, etc., do not have any further grounds for consideration.

The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit and stated as follows:--

The 4th respondent has taken a stand that the deduction towards recovery of loans availed through the employees cooperative credit and thrift

society is not feasible for the class of employees represented by the petitioner as they do not get regular salary/pay from the Government. Such a

statement is not correct as could be seen from the 9 documents which are filed along with the additional typed set of papers.

The petitioner further submits that the Extra Departmental Employees namely Gramin Dak Sewaks have salary bills and pay slips and

recoveries are made for group insurance, security deposit, cycle loan, circle benevolent fund, welfare fund, etc. Therefore, it is submitted that when

such recoveries are made, there is no valid reason for the respondents to refuse to give consent to deduct for collection of loans availed through

cooperative thrift and credit society permitted under the Payment of Wages Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Petitioner Association consisting of 304 members and they are working with the Postal

Department continuously for periods ranging from 4 years to 26 years. As such, there is employer-employee relationships which are prevailing

between the petitioner employees Union and respondents 1 to 4. The petitioner employees Association workers have been paid yearly increments,

gratuity, retirement benefits, death benefits. The very competent counsel further submits that similar societies of Postal employees are functioning at

Madurai and they have been granted loans by the Society. Similarly in the same Department Andhra Pradesh and Kerala Circles had granted

facilities to the similar category employees. The Union employees had been paid a sum of Rs. 1,500/- as cycle advance, the same recovered by

the employer every month until the said cycle advance amount is cleared. Further, the petitioner Association employees are not private individuals.

They are recognized employees of the Postal Department. Their employment after fulfilling the necessary qualifications were appointed to the

responding department for the said categories of employees, therefore, the petitioner association employees are entitled to avail the privileged

facilities.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the employees are not regular employees, they are the Extra Departmental employees, as

such they are not been paid regular salary. The cycle advance paid by the respondent without interest on their own risk but the respondent cannot

furnish any guarantee or assurance to the 5th respondent credit Society towards any loan amount. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 cannot

provide any facility of recovering the monthly instalments towards the loan amount granted by the Society from the pay rolls of the members of the

Society.

From the above discussion, this Court is of the view: (1) for availing personal loan the requirement is the employee should be on the rolls as a

permanent employee, thereafter for seeking a loan he/she should furnish particulars of gross salary, net salary, deductions, etc. in order to be

assessed for the loan facility, this is intended to determine the repayment capacity of the employee and duration of the permanent services and

superannuation. In the instant case, it does not arise. Therefore, mandatory accord cannot be served by this Court. (2) Extra Departmental

employees cannot be treated as permanent employees, therefore, the petitioner request is void, hence respondents 1 to 4 cannot provide their

cooperation for seeking and availing loan facilities, as such discrimination does not arise in this case. Further, for availing loan facility on the basis of

interest personal right and fundamental right will not find coverage since it is only in the paying capacity criteria. Therefore, this Court cannot give a

direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to stand guarantee furnish or assurance for the Extra Departmental employees.

On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side and on perusing the

documents filed by them, this Court does not have sufficient force to allow the writ petition and hence stands a failure. In the result, the above writ

petition is dismissed and the order of the first respondent bearing No. 18-1/2002-WL and Sports dated 3.06.2002, is confirmed. No costs.