ups_00631 — Applicant who was engaged as GDS completed more than 3 years of service except one day break in between periods. The impugned order, dated 21-7-2015 whereby the continuation of the Applicant is not tenable is set aside with a direction to R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundergarh Division to reconsider the Applicant's case in accordance with the Circular, dated 18-5-1979 (A/6) and expeditiously communicate the decision to the Applicant through a speaking order within 3 months of rec

Applicant who was engaged as GDS completed more than 3 years of service except one day break in between periods. The impugned order, dated 21-7-2015 whereby the continuation of the Applicant is not tenable is set aside with a direction to R-3, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sundergarh Division to reconsider the Applicant's case in accordance with the Circular, dated 18-5-1979 (A/6) and expeditiously communicate the decision to the Applicant through a speaking order within 3 months of receipt the judgment — This chunk pertains to an appeal case (O.A. No. 562 of 2015 and M.A. No. 1033 of 2019) regarding a postal employee (Applicant) who served as GDS for more than 3 years except for one day break in betw... — Facts: Applicant submitted that he was working as GDS for more than 3 years except one day break in between. Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Rabi Narayan Mohapatra v. State of Orissa and others [ 1991 (2) SCC 599 ] had said that one day break is to be ignored and engagement is to be treated as continuous. Applicant wants benefit of the Circular, dated 18-5-1979 (A/6). Further as per law, the replacement of Applicant, a GDS by another provisional GDS is not permissible under law. He had also stated as per Para. 4 (8) of the OA, he had been engaged for more than three years which ensures his continuation. Respondents stated that the Applicant had not worked for about 335 days as driver between 2011 and 2015 as per the documents furnished by the Applicant in the OA. After examining the documents submitted by both sides, the issue to be decided is, whether Circular at A/6 of the DG, Posts will be applicable to the Applicant. Para. 2 of the said Circular, dated 18-5-1979 (A/6) is reproduced. As per this circular, if a GDS at the time of discharge had put in not less than 3 years' continuous approved service, their name shall be included in the waiting list of ED Agents discharged from service, prescribed in DGP&T Letter, dated 23-2-1979. Respondents state that the Applicant is not engaged as driver for the said period but engaged with a break in between enclosing the service period of the Applicant. Respondents also state that the present case is not comparable with that of the case of Rabi Narayan Mohapatra (supra) and is distinguishable. Applicant cited another case of Kartik Chandra Panda which was disposed of by the High Court of Orissa to state that an ad hoc temporary employee should not be replaced by another temporary / ad hoc employee. In a similar case, Apex Court quashed disengagement vide AIR 2018 (3) SCC 680. Provisionally appointed GDSs are entitled to some benefits. Case of Kadambini Samantaray and others v. State of Orissa and others was said in regard to minimum eligibility condition for engagement of the Applicant as GDS. Hence that judgment quoted by Respondents is not helpful to them. In the Applicant's engagement as Driver, it is only stated in the impugned Order, dated 21-7-2015 (A/9), that Applicant "had not rendered at approved and continuous service" without any supporting documents to say so. Hence the Tribunal held: