om:58-cl-2019-Jun — The first issue of jurisdiction of Tribunal to deal with cases pertaining to GDS employees is not talked of by higher Courts so far and hence the present case pertaining to the GDS employee, the Applicant herein, can be considered by Tribunal. Respondents i.e., Postal Department are directed to consider the case of the Applicant herein treating Maulvi Examination as equivalent to 10th Standard for purpose of appointment on compassionate ground to the post of GDS.

The first issue of jurisdiction of Tribunal to deal with cases pertaining to GDS employees is not talked of by higher Courts so far and hence the present case pertaining to the GDS employee, the Applicant herein, can be considered by Tribunal. Respondents i.e., Postal Department are directed to consider the case of the Applicant herein treating Maulvi Examination as equivalent to 10th Standard for purpose of appointment on compassionate ground to the post of GDS. — Case pertaining to a GDS employee regarding jurisdiction of Tribunal and equivalence of Maulvi Examination to 10th Standard for appointment on compassionate ground in the Postal Department. O.A. No. ... — Facts: Firstly, the Counsel for the Respondents raised the issue of jurisdiction of the Tribunal with respect to GDS who according to Respondent are not Central Government employees and cannot be covered under Section 14 of the AT Act, 1985. Hence DoP&T circular cannot be applied to the Applicant's case.

Applicant has filed ruling of Amritlal Chhaganlal v. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Junagarh in which the case of GDS workers has been taken into cognizance and dealt with accordingly. Ruling of Apex Court in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma, Junagarh and others in which GDS employee is involved support the issue. Nowhere the jurisdiction of the CAT with respect to GDS employee being Central Government employee has been dealt with specifically. Cases of GDS employee being taken up by Tribunal does not directly conclude or lead to the conclusion that the worker concerned is under purview of service matter pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of Union and so covered by the Act.

In this case, the principles of jurisdiction is not assailed. Cases of GDS had been dealt with by Tribunals and higher Courts in Writ Petition and SLP and nowhere the issue of jurisdiction had been assailed by anybody. Respondent Counsel had not submitted to support his claim of GDS not permitted to deal with by Tribunal.

Coming to the claim of the Applicant who holds a qualification validated by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (MoPPP) vide OM, dated 23-2-2010 (A-6) wherein the equivalent of UP Board is specified w.r.t. Munshi, Maulvi, etc. qualification. Respondents continue to deny this validation as far as GDS are concerned, on the ground as mentioned in Para.-B of OM, dated 14-1-2015 (CA1). Only 10th standard pass is mentioned and no equivalence is mentioned whatsoever.

Equivalence of 10th standard with Maulvi, etc. not explicitly mentioned, so also DoP&T circular, dated 23-10-2010 also cannot be brushed aside. Respondents while stating about qualification as above, state that "only specified Rules are applicable".

In view of the above position, Tribunal has to give the benefit of doubt and positively consider existence of equivalent qualification circular of DoP&T as adequate proof; the OM, dated 14-1-2015 cannot be set aside.