ups_00422 — An ED Agent selected as per rule or an ED Agent who had completed 3 years of service in that capacity cannot be removed / dismissed / terminated from service without following Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules of Postal Department

An ED Agent selected as per rule or an ED Agent who had completed 3 years of service in that capacity cannot be removed / dismissed / terminated from service without following Rule 10 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules of Postal Department — This chunk pertains to a legal case O.A. No. 57 of 2008 involving an Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster (EDBPM) named Urmilaben Vinubhai Vasava, who was harassed by her husband and took a leave. Th... — Facts: The Applicant, an Extra-Departmental Branch Postmaster (EDBPM) of Mariampura Branch Post Office was selected after following procedure and posted in that said Post Office. She was harassed by her husband which led to her taking nineteen days' leave from 13-12-2003 to 31-12-2003. By then, she had worked in that capacity from April, 2000 to December, 2003. She requested for posting in another post office to avoid her harassment by her husband which was not heard. She did not resume duties after the expiry of her leave and asked for further leave which was not granted. She also requested the Postmaster-General, Vadodara Region to transfer her due to family problems. But her request was not heard and her service was terminated by the Postal Department. The department submitted that as she did not join duty after the expiry of her leave she ceased to be an ED Agent as per DG's Instructions 2 (6) below Rule 5 of Kartavya Compilation of Service Rule of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules. The department had accepted that she worked with effect from 29-4-2000 to 12-12-2003 and there was no communication from January, 2004 up to 3-10-2006 when she represented her case for posting elsewhere. The department stated that the department is not concerned with her family problems and her provisional appointment was terminated without issuing notice as per rule and her transfer is not also permitted by GDS Rule. The Applicant submits that she underwent the pre-appointment rules as per procedure and handed over the papers to Inspector who is then responsible to get the regular order issued. Her explanation for absence was not sent by her as the notices were issued to Mariampura (P.O.) where she was not residing. The Respondents filed a rejoinder stating that the Applicant has not asked for regular appointment. The OA was filed for consideration whether the decision of the Respondents to treat the Applicant as having ceased to be an ED Agent because of her absence of more than 180 days can be legally sustained under relevant rules. The Applicant was selected provisionally after regular selection process which is evident from the letter of Superintendent of Post Office, Nadiad to Sub-Divisional Inspector, Petlad P.O. The SDI was also instructed to get the pre-appointment papers prepared and get signed by the Applicant. Record also reveals that she functioned for over three years as EDBPM at Mariampura and she left the job due to harassment of her husband and forced to leave the village also. Her representation was denied to have been received by the Respondents. The department submitted that as she was not a regular appointee, the termination of her service is in order. But the records show otherwise as a regular appointee. The Respondents failed to issue her regular appointment letter. It is the responsibility of the department to get the concerned papers prepared and get signed by her. Analyzing the GDS Rules, it was said.