Prabhanshu Tiwari vs Director General and others

The petitioner has filed this writ petition against the order dated 18.03.2016 passed in O.A. No. 200/00337/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur.

The Superintendent, Post Office, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur invited applications for Gramin Dak Sewa, Branch Dakpal at Post Office Aamahinota, Bhedaghat, Jabalpur vide notification dated 05.12.2013. The petitioner applied for the same and he was selected and appointed on the said post. After completion of training an appointment order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 27.11.2014 on the terms and conditions that the petitioner was selected and appointed at Gramin Dak Sewak, Branch Aamahinota, Bhedaghat, Jabalpur w.e.f. 15.11.2014 in the pay scale of Rs.2745-50-4245. The appointment of the petitioner was contract appointment and his services could be terminated by one month's notice and salary. The service rules for Postal Grmain Dak Seva (Conduct & Employment ) Rules 2001, (in short "The Rules of 2001") would be applicable in regard to conduct and service of the petitioner. The petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions and joined the services. The services of the petitioner were terminated, vide order dated 10.4.2015 with one month's notice and salary.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid act, the petitioner filed petition, i.e. O.A. No. 200/00337/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur challenging the order of termination on the ground that the order is arbitrary and illegal and the petitioner had served in the department for a period of about six months and without any reason his services were terminated. The Department in its reply pleaded that the petitioner was engaged in accordance with the provisions of Rules of 2001, due to some mistake erroneous notification was issued in OC Category in Jabalpur Division for 29 posts and when mistake was pointed

out. The Post Master General had taken a decision to cancel the notification of OC category. Consequently, the services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with the Rules of 2001.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur vide the impugned order dated 18.03.2016 dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the services of the petitioner were terminated in terms of statutory provisions of Rules and there are valid reasons.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appointment of the petitioner was regular one and the department has wrongly changed the nature of appointment as contract appointment. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that as per the notification issued by the department in regard to appointment of the petitioner the post was not in excess under OC category, hence, the reasons assisted by the department are contrary to law.

It is well settled proposition of law that Extra Departmental Agent, (EDA) is a Government Servant holding a civil post. However, the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1965 are not applicable in the case of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent because they are government by the Rules of 2011 and the aforesaid rules are complete Code governing the Service, Conduct and Disciplinary Proceedings against the Extra Departmental Delivery Agent as held by the Apex Court in Union of India and others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad reported in (1997) 11 SCC

The Apex Court has stated the history of Extra Departmental Agent

System and further held as in regard to their status as under :-

"2. The Extra Departmental Agents system in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is in vogue since 1854. The object underlying it is to cater to postal needs of the rural communities dispersed in remote areas. The system avails of the services of schoolmasters, shopkeepers, landlords and such other persons in a village who have the faculty of reasonable standard of literacy and adequate means of livelihood and who, therefore, in their leisure can assist the Department by way of gainful avocation and social service in ministering to the rural communities in their postal needs, through maintenance of simple accounts and adherence to minimum procedural formalities, as prescribed by the Department for the purpose. [See: Swamy's Compilation of Service Rules for Extra Departmental Staff in Postal Department p. 1.] 3. The Extra Departmental Agents are Government servants holding a civil post and are entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution (See: Supdt. of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma . They are governed by separate set of rules, viz., the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules are not applicable to this category of employees in view of the notification dated 28-2-1957 issued by the Government of India under Rule 3 (3) of the said Rules."

There is a provision in the Rules in regard to appointment of EDA and it should be on contract basis. Rule 8 prescribes termination of employment. Rule 8 (1) and (2) read as under :-

"8. Termination of Employment

(1) The employment of a Sevak who has not already more than three years' continuous employment from the date of his appointment shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Sevak to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Sevak; (2) The period of such notice shall be one month."

In accordance with the aforesaid rule, if employment of a Sevak is not rendered for more than three years, his services could be terminated by one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. In the present case there are valid reasons for termination of services of the petitioner.

He has been given one month's salary, hence, in our opinion, the tribunal has passed the valid order. No error of jurisdiction has been committed by the Tribunal. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is hereby dismissed.