om:62-cl-2017-June — Applicants in this OA first joined as casual labourers and subsequently entered the service of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) during 1989. They were made MTS with all benefits of a regular employee. When vacancies arose in MTS cadre earlier to their posting in MTS, the Applicants must necessarily be posted against those vacancies as MTS and surrender of those posts by Respondents is incorrect and those surrendered posts should be resurrected and Applicants should be shown as posted against those

GDS Rules

Applicants in this OA first joined as casual labourers and subsequently entered the service of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) during 1989. They were made MTS with all benefits of a regular employee. When vacancies arose in MTS cadre earlier to their posting in MTS, the Applicants must necessarily be posted against those vacancies as MTS and surrender of those posts by Respondents is incorrect and those surrendered posts should be resurrected and Applicants should be shown as posted against those resurrected MTS posts notionally from the date on which such vacancies arose counting the period for pensionary benefits only from the date they were appointed as MTS subsequently — This OA concerns 8 applicants who were initially casual labourers and subsequently entered as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) in 1989. They contend they should have been posted against vacancies that arose e... — Facts: There are 8 Applicants in this OA who were initially joined as casual labourers in RMS (EK) Division. Then they were entered as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) during 1989. They submit that those who were not in service were taken as MTS with all benefits of regular employees including statutory pension. They are aggrieved for non-inclusion of their names under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Inclusion of their names in New Pension Scheme (NPS) brought in effect from 1-1-2004 is incorrect as the Respondents failed to promote them in MTS cadre which had occurred much earlier to 1-1-2004 in which case they will come under old Pension Scheme i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is stated in O.A. No. 312 of 2008 and W.P. No. 34512 of 2009 that every appointment of GDS to the post of MTS is in the nature of promotion and therefore no sanction is required from Screening Committee. Further, they submit that they are to be considered for the post of MTS during the period from 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2003. They also state by obtaining information through Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) that there were vacancies between 2001 and 31-12-2003. Out of 31 vacancies available during that period only 22 candidates were filled by appointment. Stating so A-I submitted a representation to R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices seeking notional appointment prior to 1-1-2004 with all consequential benefits. Hence this OA is filed to place them notionally as Group ‘D' with effect from the date the vacancies arose with consequential benefits or include them in statutory pension scheme (which existed prior) i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 granting notional appointment to them from the date of occurrence of vacancies. The Respondents resist their request as hypothetical. As per Recruitment Rules, 2002, test shall be held to determine the ability of candidates and in case they are found suitable in the test 75% of the MTS posts will be filled by selection-cum-seniority and 25% from casual labourers based on selection-cum-seniority. The Respondents contend that the Applicants cannot be placed under statutory pension scheme as their appointment / notional promotion is after the introduction of NPS i.e. after 1-1-2004.
The Tribunal examined the submission of both sides. The claim of the Applicants is based on the order passed by the Tribunal in CP (C) No. 95/2009 in O.A. No. 352 of 2008 and connected cases. In that case, the Tribunal invoked the provisions of Order 24 of CAT (Procedural Rules), 1987 for proper implementation of the order passed in O.A. No. 649 of 2001 and other cases to resurrect the abolished vacancies and fill them up by promotion of GDS employees. That argument of abolishing vacancies were declared in order by the High Court and hence that there is no question of abolition of posts in respect of vacancies to be filled up by promoting GDS or casual labourers. The Tribunal in CP (C) No. 95 of 2009 observed that the declaration of law by High Court has retrospective effect and therefore the posts which were abolished requires to be resurrected. Paras. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the CP (C) No. 95 of 2009 is extracted to substantiate their views as above.
In this connection, the judgment Paras. 3 and 4 of High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 345/2/2009 is reproduced to substantiate their views.
In Para. 3 of the OM, the Office Memorandum reads as below:—
“The abolition is thus only in respect of posts to be filled by direct recruitment. There is no basis for the submission of Central Government Council that only vacancies cleared by Screening Committee can be filled up even in the matter of promotion. This Court in the judgment, dated 22-3-2007 in WP (C) No. 228/8/96 held that no clearance is required for filling up the posts by direct recruitment.”
The above dictum of High Court is a declaration of law to which the dictum of Apex Court in Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) [ 2009 (4) SCC 299 ] is squarely applicable. Para. 52 of that judgment to the above statement is reproduced.
The Applicants contend that the vacancies in GDS in 1989 were available in Postal Division as obtained from RTI Act, 2005 which was denied by Respondents and state that those vacancies were abolished before the Applicants were actually promoted to Group ‘D'. It appears that the Respondents are adopting the policy of quieta non movere (not to unsettle things which are established). No clearance from Screening Committee is required for filling up posts by promotion in Group ‘D' cadre. It was held that when Court clarifies a legal position, it applies not only for future but also with retrospective effect.

GDS Rules

Applicants in this OA first joined as casual labourers and subsequently entered the service of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) during 1989. They were made MTS with all benefits of a regular employee. When vacancies arose in MTS cadre earlier to their posting in MTS, the Applicants must necessarily be posted against those vacancies as MTS and surrender of those posts by Respondents is incorrect and those surrendered posts should be resurrected and Applicants should be shown as posted against those resurrected MTS posts notionally from the date on which such vacancies arose counting the period for pensionary benefits only from the date they were appointed as MTS subsequently — This OA concerns 8 applicants who were initially casual labourers and subsequently entered as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) in 1989. They contend they should have been posted against vacancies that arose e... — Facts: There are 8 Applicants in this OA who were initially joined as casual labourers in RMS (EK) Division. Then they were entered as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) during 1989. They submit that those who were not in service were taken as MTS with all benefits of regular employees including statutory pension. They are aggrieved for non-inclusion of their names under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Inclusion of their names in New Pension Scheme (NPS) brought in effect from 1-1-2004 is incorrect as the Respondents failed to promote them in MTS cadre which had occurred much earlier to 1-1-2004 in which case they will come under old Pension Scheme i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is stated in O.A. No. 312 of 2008 and W.P. No. 34512 of 2009 that every appointment of GDS to the post of MTS is in the nature of promotion and therefore no sanction is required from Screening Committee. Further, they submit that they are to be considered for the post of MTS during the period from 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2003. They also state by obtaining information through Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI) that there were vacancies between 2001 and 31-12-2003. Out of 31 vacancies available during that period only 22 candidates were filled by appointment. Stating so A-I submitted a representation to R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices seeking notional appointment prior to 1-1-2004 with all consequential benefits. Hence this OA is filed to place them notionally as Group ‘D' with effect from the date the vacancies arose with consequential benefits or include them in statutory pension scheme (which existed prior) i.e. CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 granting notional appointment to them from the date of occurrence of vacancies. The Respondents resist their request as hypothetical. As per Recruitment Rules, 2002, test shall be held to determine the ability of candidates and in case they are found suitable in the test 75% of the MTS posts will be filled by selection-cum-seniority and 25% from casual labourers based on selection-cum-seniority. The Respondents contend that the Applicants cannot be placed under statutory pension scheme as their appointment / notional promotion is after the introduction of NPS i.e. after 1-1-2004.
The Tribunal examined the submission of both sides. The claim of the Applicants is based on the order passed by the Tribunal in CP (C) No. 95/2009 in O.A. No. 352 of 2008 and connected cases. In that case, the Tribunal invoked the provisions of Order 24 of CAT (Procedural Rules), 1987 for proper implementation of the order passed in O.A. No. 649 of 2001 and other cases to resurrect the abolished vacancies and fill them up by promotion of GDS employees. That argument of abolishing vacancies were declared in order by the High Court and hence that there is no question of abolition of posts in respect of vacancies to be filled up by promoting GDS or casual labourers. The Tribunal in CP (C) No. 95 of 2009 observed that the declaration of law by High Court has retrospective effect and therefore the posts which were abolished requires to be resurrected. Paras. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the CP (C) No. 95 of 2009 is extracted to substantiate their views as above.
In this connection, the judgment Paras. 3 and 4 of High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 345/2/2009 is reproduced to substantiate their views.
In Para. 3 of the OM, the Office Memorandum reads as below:—
“The abolition is thus only in respect of posts to be filled by direct recruitment. There is no basis for the submission of Central Government Council that only vacancies cleared by Screening Committee can be filled up even in the matter of promotion. This Court in the judgment, dated 22-3-2007 in WP (C) No. 228/8/96 held that no clearance is required for filling up the posts by direct recruitment.”
The above dictum of High Court is a declaration of law to which the dictum of Apex Court in Rajasthan State Transport Corporation v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) [ 2009 (4) SCC 299 ] is squarely applicable. Para. 52 of that judgment to the above statement is reproduced.
The Applicants contend that the vacancies in GDS in 1989 were available in Postal Division as obtained from RTI Act, 2005 which was denied by Respondents and state that those vacancies were abolished before the Applicants were actually promoted to Group ‘D'. It appears that the Respondents are adopting the policy of quieta non movere (not to unsettle things which are established). No clearance from Screening Committee is required for filling up posts by promotion in Group ‘D' cadre. It was held that when Court clarifies a legal position, it applies not only for future but also with retrospective effect.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text