DOP ORDERS: 2019

Monday, June 3, 2019

Toll Free Number 1800-11-1960 for Pensioners

Details of Photography Competition

Click below link to view details on Photography Competition

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS

Representations / Grievances / complaints etc., received against Notification / Examination Notification relating to RRs / LDCE - 2018

Representations / Grievances / complaints etc., received against Notification / Examination Notification relating to RRs / LDCE - 2018 ...

CLICK HERE FOR DETAILS AND COPY OF OM dtd 29-05-2019 (5 pages)

Revised Examination Calendar For GDS To PA Exam 2019

On 31st May 2019, Department of Post revised their Departmental exam calendar which was previously postponed. The Exam will be held on 14th July 2019.

Revised Exam Calendar for GDS to PA Exam 2019

Download Notification Click Here

Revised Exam Notification For GDS To PA Exam 2019

F. No. A 34012/2/2019-DE
Government of India
Ministry of Communication
Department of Posts(DE Section)

*****

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110001
Dated: 31st May 2019

To,
All Heads of Circles

Subject: Competitive Examination limited to GDSs for the post of Postal Assistants/ Sorting Assistants for unfilled vacancies up to 31.12.2018-regarding.

Madam/ Sir,

I am directed to forward herewith a copy of “Model Notification” for issuance of the same before O4.O6.2O19 by incorporating the relevant entries at Circle level enabling smooth conduct of the aforesaid examination.

2. Other instructions regarding the setting of question papers and necessary
guidelines will be issued separately.

3. This may also be brought to the notice of all concerned.

4. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority

Yours faithfully

(M. L. Dhar
Assistant Director General (DE)

Encl: As referred to.

Download Notification Click Here

Revised Pattern & Syllabus For GDS To PA Exam 2019

The Revised Pattern and Syllabus of Competitive Examination limited to Postman/Mail Guard / MTS/ GDS for appointment as Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant.

I. Pattern of Examination For GDS to PA Exam 2019:

Pattern of Examination For GDS to PA Exam 2019

II. Revised Criteria for Selection For GDS to PA Exam 2019:-

a) Examination for Paper I and Paper II will be conducted in continuity. Thereafter, Paper III, i.e. Data Entry Skill Test (DEST), will be conducted separately on the same day.

b) Only such candidates who qualify in each Paper, viz. Paper I, Paper-II and PaperIII, shall be considered for final selection and their merit shall be drawn in order of marks secured in Paper-L Since Paper-II and Paper-III are only qualifying, marks secured in Paper-II and Paper-III shall not be added to marks secured in Paper I to decide merit.

c) After arranging the candidates in order of Merit as at (b) above, the number of candidates to be declared successful shall be equal to the number of vacancy in each category.

d) In the event of any vacancy notified for recruitment remains unfilled only due to nonjoining of the selected candidate, the next candidate in the merit List in the same category shall be considered for appoi[trEent. However, the appointment of such candidates shall be only on the ground of refusal of promotion/declining offer of appointment and no wait list or approved panel shall be maintained.

II. Revised Syllabus for Selection For GDS to PA Exam 2019:-

The Revised Syllabus for Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant Limited Departmental Competitive Examination limited to Gramin Dak Sevak, Postman and Multitasking Staff.

Revised Syllabus for Selection For GDS to PA Exam 2019

Post-operative Follow-up treatment from Hospitals empanelled under CGHS in respect of critically ill CGHS beneficiaries

Post-operative Follow-up treatment from Hospitals empanelled under CGHS in respect of critically ill CGHS beneficiaries ....

Consultation from Specialists at CGHS empanelled hospitals in respect of CGHS beneficiaries aged 75 years and above

Consultation from Specialists at CGHS empanelled hospitals in respect of CGHS beneficiaries aged 75 years and above ....

Computing of vacancies for Cycle 2nd GDS online engagement process

Directorate has ordered to compute vacancies for cycle 2 GDS Online engagement process in view of the time frame prescribed in revised guidelines of Limited transfer facility for GDS

Monday, May 27, 2019

Madras High Court Judgment in the matters of entitlement of Old Pension Scheme to GDS employees who were selected to MTS/Postman Posts after 01.01.2004 [DENIED]

Madras High Court Judgment in the matters of entitlement of Old Pension Scheme to GDS employees who were selected to MTS/Postman Posts after 01.01.2004 -- DENIED

CLICK HERE for details and coy of Judgement (28 pages)

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.03.2019
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.No.5305 of 2018
S.Raman Pillai

1. Union of India rep.by
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Kanniyakumari Division,
Nagercoil - 629 001.
2. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
Chennai - 600 001.
Petitioner

... Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records and quash the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.l913 of 2014 and consequently, direct the first respondent not to recover any amount from petitioner towards subscription to New Pension Scheme besides

declaring that petitioner's pension is governed by CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arun

For R1 : Mr.V.Balasubramanian, SCGSC for

Mr.A.Veeramani

http://www.judis.nic.in

ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL,J.)

Heard both sides.

2. According to the Petitioner, he was appointed as a 'Gramin Dak Sevak' on 20.08.1988. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of 'Postman' with effect from 25.08.2010. The Petitioner further states that Pension to the Employees of various Departments in Government of India was earlier governed by a single set of Rules, which were notified as CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. As per the said Rules, the Government of India assured each and every Employee of his right to receive a defined Pension, which would be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India. As a matter of fact, the Government of India vide its Gazette Notification in F.NO.5/7/2003-ECB&PR dated 22.12.2003 introduced a new set of Pension Rules, called as "New Pension Scheme".

1972. The 'New Pension Scheme' as notified on 22.12.2003, came into effect with effect from 01.01.2004 in respect of the Employees recruited by the Central Government on or after that date. When the Petitioner was granted promotion to the post of 'Postman', he thought that his service would be covered under the Old Defined Pension Scheme as notified under CCC (Pension) Rules, 1972. However, to his shock and dismay, the Department caused 10% recovery of his emoluments from his Basic pay + Dearness Allowance every month towards his contribution for 'New Pension Scheme' as if he was recruited as a 'new Entrant' in the Department " " t time on 25.08.2010

4.It comes to be known that the Petitioner filed OA.No.1913 of 2014 before the Second Respondent/Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking to set aside the Order No.NPS/DIgs dated 12.06.2014 passed by the Respondent (First Respondent in the present Writ Petition) and consequently, praying for passing of an order by this Court in issuing a direction not to recover any amount from him towards subscription to 'New Pension Scheme', besides declaring his pension as governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

In fact, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Petitioner should only be classified as 'new Entrant' and not an old Entrant to Government Service, in order to claim pension under 'Old Pension

Scheme'. Apart from that, the Second Respondent/Tribunal opined that since the post of 'Gramin Dak Sevak', which the Petitioner holds before 01.01.2004 was outside the Central Civil Services, he could not be termed as an old Entrant to Central Government services and as such, the 'New Pension Scheme' alone is applicable to h'-"

5. The prime contention of the Petitioner is that there is no linkage between the post of 'Gramin Dak Sevak' and the post of 'Postman' to contend that the appointment as 'Postman' is only a fresh appointment and not a promotion from the post of 'Gramin Dak Sevak'. Furthermore, it is projected by the Petitioner that the Official Gazette Notification does not prescribe that the 'New Pension Scheme' is applicable to all the new Entrant to Central Civil Services.

6. Added further, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Notification enjoins that the 'New Pension Scheme' is applicable to all the new Entrant to Central Government Services i.e.,

for persons, who do not hold any post whatsoever in the Central Government either in organized Civil Services or otherwise before 01.01.2004. In this connection, the Learned Counsel brings it to the notice of this Court that the Petitioner before being appointed as Postman on 25.08.2010, was holding a Civil Post in the Central Government, viz., 'Gramin Dak Sevak' since 20.08.1988 and that the action of the Second Respondent/Tribunal in equating both the Petitioner and the persons, who are total strangers to Central Government Services before 01.01.2004, is an unjust and arbitrary one.

7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner comes out with a plea that the Second Respondent/Tribunal had observed that his earlier appointment in the Department of Post as a 'Gramin Dak Sevak' is a non-Governmental Post. In short, the Tribunal had not taken into account the fact that the post of 'Gramin Dak Sevak' in the Department of Post is declared as a 'Civil Post' by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Superintendent of Post Offices and others v. P.K.Rajamma and others reported in 1977 AIR SC 1677.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner refers to Rule 2(h)(i) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which superseded 1957 Rules, in and by which, the term "Government Servant" is specifically defined, to include persons, who are holding a Civil Post under the Union of India and the same runs as under:

"2. Interpretation

(h) "Government Servant" means a person who...

(i) is a member of a Service or holds a Civil Post under the Union, and includes any such person on

foreign service or whose service are temporarily placed at the disposal of a State Government, or a local or other authority."

9. The crystalline stand of the Petitioner is that the Second Respondent/Tribunal, without examining the factual aspects, came to the conclusion that he was not an old Entrant to the Central Government Service based on his earlier 'Gramin Dak Sevak Service' and further, termed his appointment as 'Gramin Dak Sevak' to a Non-Government Post.

10.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner while expanding his submissions, points out that the Second Respondent/Tribunal had failed to take into consideration the instructions under Office Memorandum No.lO-6/86-PCC/SPB-I (Pt-II) dated 22.06.1988 issued by the Assistant Director General, Department of Posts, wherein, in a categorical words, clarified to the Authorities lower to him that the Postman Examination to fill up vacancies from among 'Gramin Dak Sevak' is only a qualifying one and not competitive and the candidates will be arranged according to seniority. As such, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel that the process of appointment of 'Gramin Dak Sevak' as 'Postman' is only by way of 'Promotional Process' and he cannot be classified as a new Entrant to Central Government Service on or after 01.01.2004 in order to deny penston under 'Old Pension

11.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.11.2016 passed in 0.A.No.749 of 2015 and batch of cases by the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Principal Bench, New Delhi, wherein, a prayer was made to treat the Applicants therein on par with the other Central Government Civil Servants, besides seeking to consider their GDS service for the

purpose of pension, in the event of they being promoted as 'Multi Task Staff/Postman' in the Department of Posts. Indeed, the aforesaid Tribunal had disposed of O.A.No.749 of 2015 etc. batch of cases by issuing the following directions:

To summarise, we dispose of the OAs with the following directions to the respondents:

(a) For all Gramin Dak Sevaks, who have been absorbed as regular Group 'D' staff, the period spent as Gramin Dak Sevak will be counted in toto for the purpose of pensionary benefits.

(b) Pension will be granted under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to all Gramin Dak Sevaks, who retire as Gramin Dak Sevak without absorption as regular Group 'D' staff, but the period to be counted for the purpose of pension will be 5/8th for the period spent as Gramin Dak Sevak. Rule 6 will accordingly be amended.

(d) The claim of Gramin Dak Sevaks for parity with regular employees regarding pay and allowances and other benefits available to regular employees, stands rejected."

12. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that the Second Respondent/Tribunal, without considering the order dated 16.11.2016 passed in O.A.No.749 of 2015 etc. batch of cases, had merely disposed of the said Original Applications by directing the Petitioner to submit a representation to the First Respondent to implement the directions issued by the Second Respondent/Tribunal.

13.The pith and substance of the contention of the Petitioner is that the action of the Second Respondent/Tribunal in equating the Petitioner, who holds a Central Government Service Post viz., 'Gramin Dak Sevak' prior to 01.01.2004 and the persons who are total strangers to Central Government Services before 01.01.2004 for the purpose of applicability of 'New Pension Scheme' is an illegal one. The Learned Counsel further contends that the Second

Respondent/Tribunal had overlooked a prime fact that the 'New Pension Scheme' is inapplicable to all the members of the Central Government Service, who were in roll prior to 01.01.2004 and not merely members of Central Civil Services. Therefore, the Petitioner has approached this Court with the Writ Petition seeking to call for the records and quash the order dated 13.01.2017 passed by the Second Respondent/Tribunal in O.A.No.l913 of 2014 and consequently, direct the First Respondent not to recover any amount from the Petitioner towards subscription to New Pension Scheme, besides declaring that the Petitioner's Pension is governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

14. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in support of his contention that 'CDS Employees' are the 'Government Employees', relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Satya

Dev Bushahri v. Padam Dev and others reported in AIR 1954 SC 587, wherein, at paragraph 15, it is observed as follows:

It is argued for the appellant that leaving aside the world of theories and entering into the realm of practical politics, the appointment of a government servant as polling agent by one of the candidates must result in the dice being loaded heavily against the other candidate, and that situations might be conceived in which the presence of a government servant of rank and importance as polling agent of one of the candidates might prove to be a source of unfair election practices. But if that is established, and if it is made out that the candidate or his agent had abused the right to appoint a government servant as polling agent by exploiting the situation for furthering his election prospects, then the matter can be dealt with as an infringement of Section 123(8). But the question, which we have got to decide is whether as an abstract proposition of law the mere appointment of a Government servant as a polling agent is in itself and without more, an infringement of Section 123(8). Our answer is in the negative. In the present case, the finding is that beyond acting as polling agent Sital Singh did nothing. Nor is there any finding that the respondent in any manner availed himself of his presence at the polling booth to further his own election prospects. Thus, there are no grounds for holding that Section 123(8) had been contravened."

15.The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Superintendent of Post Offices and others v. P.K.Rajamma reported in (1977) 3 SCO 94 at spl. pages 98 and 99, wherein, at paragraphs 4 and 5, it is held as under:

It is thus clear that an extra departmental agent is not a casual worker but he holds a post under the

administrative control of the State. It is apparent from the rules that the employment of an extra departmental agent is in a post which exists "apart from" the person who happens to fill it at any particular time. Though such a post is outside the regular civil services, there is no doubt it is a post under the State. The tests of a civil post laid down by this Court in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta [AIR 1967 SC 884] case (supra) are clearly satisfied in the case of the extra departmental agents."

For the appellants it is contended that the relationship between the postal authorities and the extra departmental agents is not of master and servant, but really of principal and agent. The difference between the relations of master and servant and principal and agent was pointed out by this Court in Lakshminarayan Ram

Gopal and Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad [AIR 1954 SC 364] . On page 401 of the report the following lines from Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham Edn.) Volume 1, at page 193, Article 345, were quoted with approval in explaining the difference:

"An agent is to be distinguished on the one hand from a servant, and on the other from an independent contractor. A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master, and is bound to conform to all reasonable orders given to him in the course of his work; and independent contractor, on the other hand, is entirely independent of any control or interference and merely undertakes to produce a specified result, employing his own means to produce that result.

An agent, though bound to exercise his authority in accordance with all lawful instructions which may be given to him from time to time by his principal, is not subject in its exercise to the direct control or supervision of the principal. An agent, as such is not a servant, but a servant is generally for some purposes his master's implied agent, the extent of the agency depending upon the duties or position of the servant."

The rules make it clear that these extra departmental agents work under the direct control and supervision of the authorities who obviously have the right to control the manner in which they must carry out their duties. There can be no doubt therefore that the relationship between the postal authorities and the extra departmental agents is one of master and servant. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants on two decisions, one of the Orissa High Couvt Venkata Swamy y. Superintendent. Post Offices [AIR 1957 Ori 112] and the other of the Madras High Court y. Subbarayaiu y. Superintendent of Post Offices [AIR 1961 Mad 166]. The judgment in these cases were rendered before the elaborate rules governing the conduct and service of these extra departmental agents were brought into operation in 1964. We do not therefore think an examination of these two decisions will be relevant or useful for disposing of the appeals before us.”

16. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks in aid of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chet Ram v. Jit Singh reported in (2008) 14 SCC 427 at spl. page 429, wherein, at paragraphs 2 and 4, it is observed as under:

Whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is a government servant and consequently is disqualified to become a member of Nagar Panchayat in terms of Section ll(gr) of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994 (for short "the Act") is the question involved herein."

The contention of the appellant that he was not a government employee having been working on part-time basis and, thus, was not disqualified in terms of Section ll(gr) of the Act was rejected by the Tribunal by reason of its judgment and order dated 25-8-2004 inter alia holding that having regard to the provisions of Rule 22(4) of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 (for short "the Rules"), he stood disqualified. An appeal was preferred thereagainst which was marked as FAO No. 4305 of 2004. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court held:

"The appellant is a part-time employee of the post office under the Central Government, outside regular civil service.

Nonetheless, he is holding this post under the Government and he is also entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajamma case [Supdt.

of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma, (1977) 3

SCC 94] and other judgments. He is also getting remuneration by way of salary.

He is appointed by and paid by Central Government and is under direct control of the Central Government. Case of Madhukar G.E. Pankakar [Madhukar G.E. Pankakar v. Jaswant Chobbildas

Rajani, (1977) 1 SCC 70] relating to insurance medical practitioner appointed under the provisions of the ESI Act is different. In the said case, the employee was not being paid directly by the Government nor was control of the Government direct, as observed in para 40 of the judgment. In the present case,

the position is different. The appellant was, thus, rightly held to be disqualified from contesting election."

The appellant is, thus, before us." Also, in the aforesaid decision, at page 434, at paragraph 18, it is

mentioned as follows:

. In Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad

[(1997) 11 SCC 650 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 447] it was

held: (SCC p. 652, paras 2-3)

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 [Supdt. of Post Offices v. P.K.

Rajamma, (1977) 3 SCC 94]). 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."

17. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further refers to the

order dated 10.07.2014 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.13491 of 2009

in the case of Union of India and others v. All India Postal ED

Employees Union (Punjab Circle), Amritsar and others reported in CDJ

2014 PHC 737, wherein, it is held as under:

"The fundamental plea of the learned counsel for

the petitioners, initially, was that the nature of

employment of the private respondents before us was

different as they were not regular Government employees

and they were not even paid bonus. However, he could

not dispute the position that in view of the

pronouncement in Chet Ram v. Jit Singh [(2008) 14 SCC

427] case (supra), these GDS had already been held to

be Government employees."

18. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the

First Respondent that the Petitioner was initially engaged as 'Gramin

Dak Sevak' at Velimalai Branch Office Account with Manalikarai Sub

Office on 20.08.1988. In the interregnum period, the Department

initiated action to conduct the 'Postman Examination' for the 50% of

vacancies (assessed for the year 2009) meant for Departmental Group

'D' Officials (now called Multi Task Staff) and 25% of merit quota

vacancies. Further, it is represented that as against the total

vacancies for 2009, 50% would be for 'Departmental Quota' and 50%

for 'Direct Quota'. Moreover, from 50% of vacancies meant for Direct

Quota, one half would be given for GDS, on the basis of length of

service as prescribed in DG's Letter No.44-20/94-SPB-I dated

30.01.1995 communicated in Circle Office Letter No.REP/5-2/09/PM

Exam/2010 dated 10.02.2010.

19. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent points out that

the GDS, who have completed a minimum satisfactory service of 5

years as on 01.01.2010, was permitted to take up the Examination

meant for 25% of GDS merit quota subject to fulfillment of age and

educational qualifications as prescribed in Postmaster General

Southern Region (TN), Madurai, Memo No.REP/6-7/2010/MA dated

19.02.2010 and communicated in Senior Superintendent of Post

Offices, Kanniyakumari Division, Nagercoil Memo No.BII/5-7/2010/PM

Exam dated 03.03.2010. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for

the First Respondent draws the attention of this Court to the fact that

the Petitioner was one among the candidates applied for Postman

Examination against 25% of vacancies for the year 2009 meant for

GDS merit quota, since he has fulfilled all other criteria for appearing

in the Examination scheduled to be held on 09.05.2010 and was

postponed to 30.05.2010 and was really conducted on 30.05.2010 as

per the order of the Postmaster General, SR, Madurai vide Letter

NO.REP/6-7/2010/MA dated 13.04.2010. In fact, the Petitioner was

permitted to appear for the said Examination and hall permit bearing

Roll No.J/04/PM/lO was issued to him. He attended the Examination

on 30.05.2010 and the results were declared and communicated to the

successful candidates, as per the letter of the Senior Superintendent of

Post Offices, Kanniyakumari Division, Nagercoil bearing No.Bll5-7/2010

dated 11.08.2010.

20.On behalf of the First Respondent, it is brought to the notice

of this Court that the Petitioner had come out successful in the said

Examination for the post of Postman conducted for outside candidates

and he joined as 'Postman Marthandam Post Office' with effect from

26.08.2010. He was enrolled under 'New Pension Scheme' being

Permanent Retirement Account No.110081266917, which was allotted

to him. Besides this, the recovery towards 'New Pension Scheme' was

commenced from the salary of the month following the month in

which the Petitioner joined service, as per the Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, New Delhi F.No.l(7)(2)/2003/TA/19 dated

14.01.2004 and the recovery is still continuously made from his salary.

After the recovery of amount under the 'New Pension Scheme' from his

salary from the month of his appointment as Postman, Marthandam,

i.e., from September 2010, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ

Petition in WP.No.5305 of 2018 with a plea, not to recover any amount

towards 'New Pension Scheme' from his salary and to collect

contribution towards General Provident Fund on the ground that he

originally joined in the Department as early as on 20.08.1988 as 'Dak

Sevak Mail Deliverer'.

21. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent submits that

the Petitioner's request dated 21.04.2014 to stop recovery of amount

under the 'New Pension Scheme' and to recover the amount under the

'Old Pension Scheme', was rejected by the then Senior Superintendent

of Post Offices, Kanniyakumari Division, Nagercoil, vide Letter

No.NPS/Dlgs dated 12.06.2014 on the following grounds that the

Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,

Controller General of Accounts, New Delhi, vide

F.No.l(7)(2)/2003/TA/19 dated 14.01.2004, has introduced a 'new

Defined Contribution Pension Scheme' replacing the existing system of

'Defined Benefit Pension System', as per the Notification dated

22.12.2003, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,

Department of Economic Affairs.

22. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent forcibly

projects an argument that the 'New Pension Scheme' comes into

operation with effect from 01.01.2004 and is applicable to all the new

Entrants to Central Government Service except to Armed Forces,

joining Government Service on or after 01.01.2004. As such, the

extant instructions on the 'Defined Benefit Pension' and GPF would not

be applicable to new Government servants joining the Government

service on or after 01.01.2004. In short, the Petitioner joined in the

Departmental Government Service after 01.01.2004 and hence, he is

ineligible for GPF contribution because of the reason that the GPF

Scheme is inapplicable to him.

23. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent also points out

that the system of engaging EDAs (now called GDS) is exclusive to the

Department of Posts and the Sevaks so engaged are not required to

perform duty beyond a maximum period of 5 hours in a day. Further,

they are the holders of Civil Post, but are not in Civil Regular Service,

as they are not governed by Regular Civil Service Rules. Thus,

EDAs/GDS is a distinct category and is governed by the non-statutory

Rules formulated by the Government from time to time; and that GDS

absorbed in regular Departmental posts on or after 01.01.2004 also

ceased to be governed by CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. \J

24. The core plea of the First Respondent is that the New Gramin

Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 and the revised

Rules called (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 which came into

effect from 24.04.2011, expressly mentioned under Rule 6 that "the

Sevaks shall not be entitled to any pension".

25. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent contends that

the Petitioner's service rendered in 'GDS Cadre' cannot be equated

with Casual Labourer in view of the fact that GDS shall be required to

perform duty beyond the maximum period of 5 hours per day and his

services are governed by Department of Posts, GDS (Conduct and

Employment) Rules, 2001 superseded by revised Rules called the

Department of Posts GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

Further, the Petitioner is not paid with any salary or wages, but he is

entitled for time related continuity allowance on the basis of work load

as per the 'Standards of Assessment' decided by the Department,

which clearly distinguishes a 'GDS' from the casual labourer. Besides

this, when the status of the Government employee is not conferred to

any of the GDS, the claim of the Petitioner seeking regularisation of his

GDS services for the purpose of enrolling him under the 'old Pension

Scheme' and 'GPF', is not a valid claim, according to the First

Respondent.

26. The Learned Counsel for the F^rst Respondent submits that

GDS (Gramin Dak Sevaks) come under Rule 10 of GDS (C&E) Rules,

2001, for disciplinary proceedings and regular staff come under Rules

14 and 16 for disciplinary proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules and

that, the non-pensionable service rendered by GDS is well known to

them, while working as GDS and when they are selected as MTS or

Postman post, they are recruited only under 'Direct Recruitment

Quota'. In short, the stand of the First Respondent is that when 'GDS

service' itself is not pensionable, the demand of the Petitioner for 'Old

Pension Scheme' is untenable.

27. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent refers to Rule

14(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which provides that "for the

purposes of Sub Rule (1), the expression 'Service' means survive

under the Government and paid by that Government from

Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund administered by that

Government, but does not include service in a non-pensionable

establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by

that Government. Therefore, it is the contention of the First

Respondent that "Extra Departmental Agents" are provided to be

specifically excluded from the application of pension under applicable

Rules and the Government has also not provided counting of a part of

the service rendered by them in the capacity of EDA/GDS on

absorption to regular departmental posts. Thus, it is the claim of the

First Respondent that the regular appointment gained by them as

MTS/Postman cannot be treated as "Continuous Service" from the

earlier service. Moreover, Rule 4 of P&T Extra Departmental Agents

(Conduct and Service) Rules 1964, expressly provided that the

"Employee shall not be entitled to any pension". Even the Rules

relating to Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001

which came into effect from 24.04.2001 and also Rule 6 thereof

expressly provided that "the Sevaks shall not be entitled to any

pension". Under such circumstances, they cannot be treated as having

entered into the service before 01.01.2004.

28. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent also refers to

Rules 3-A and 6 of the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevak

(Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which are usefully extracted

hereunder: /

"3-A. Terms and Conditions of Engagement:

(i) A Sevak shall not be required to perform

duty beyond a maximum period of 5 hours in a day;

(ii) A Sevak shall not be retained beyond 65

years of age;

(iii) A Sevak shall have to give an undertaking

that he has other sources of income besides the

allowances paid or to be paid by the Government for

adequate means of livelihood for himself and his

family;

(iv) A Sevak can be transferred from one

post/unit to another post/unit in public interest;

(v) A Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of

the Union;

(vi) A Sevak shall not claim to be at par with

the Central Government employees;

(vii) Residence in post village/delivery

jurisdiction of the Post Office within one month after

selection but before engagement shall be mandatory

for a Sevak;

Failure to reside in place of duty for GDS BPM

and within delivery jurisdiction of the Post Office for

other categories of Gramin Dak Sevaks after

engagement shall be treated as violative of

conditions of engagement and liable for disciplinary

action under Rule 10 of the Conduct Rules, requiring

removal/dismissal;

(viii)Post Office shall be located in the

accommodation to be provided by Gramin Dak

Sevak Branch Postmaster suitable for use as Post

Office premises;

(ix)Combination of duties of a Sevak shall be

permissible."

"6.Pension:

The Sevaks shall not be entitled to any

pension. However, they shall be entitled to ex gratia

gratuity or any other payment as may be decided by

the Government from time to time."

29. The Learned Counsel for the First Respondent relies on the

non-Reportable judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal

No.90 of 2015 dated 12.08.2016 between Y.Najithamol and others and

Soumya S.D and others, wherein, at paragraph 12, it is observed and

held as under:

"The Division Bench of the High Court placed

reliance on the wording of Column 11(1) to conclude

that since the Extra Departmental Agents being

appointed as provided under Column 11(1) can be

called as promotees, then the Extra Departmental

Agents under Column 11(2)(i) and (ii) also must be

treated at par. The said reasoning of the High Court

also cannot be sustained. It is nobody's case that the

Extra Departmental Agents being appointed under

Column 11(1) be called promotees. The language of

Column 11(1) itself makes this crystal clear. The use of

the words 'failing which' makes it obvious that there is

a distinction between those candidates who are being

selected by way of promotion, and the candidates who

are Extra Departmental Agents and have cleared the

departmental examination, and that the latter will be

considered for appointment only if there are no eligible

candidates under the former category. Thus, the

appointment of GDS to the post of Postman can only be

said to be by way of direct recruitment and not

promotion.

Also, in th,e aforesaid decision, at paragraph 9, it is observed as under:

^ At this stage, it is also useful to refer to the

decision of this Court in the case of C.C.

Padmanabhan & Ors. v. Director of Public

Instructions & Ors.[1980 (Supp) SCC 668], wherein

it was held as under:

"This definition fully conforms to the

meaning of 'promotion' as understood in

ordinary parlance and also as a term

frequently used in cases involving service

laws. According to it a person already holding

a post would have a promotion if he is

appointed to another post which satisfies

either of the following two conditions, namely-

. (i) that the new post is in a higher

category of the same service or class of

service;

(ii) the new post carries a higher grade

in the same service or class."

Promotion to a post, thus, can only happen when

the promotional post and the post being promoted

from are a part of the same class of service. Gramin

Dak Sevak is a civil post, but is not a part of the

regular service of the postal department. In the case

of Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad [(1997) 11

SCC 650], this Court held 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.]"

Further, a three-judge Bench of this Court in the

case of The Superintendent of Post Offices &

Ors. V. P.K. Rajamma[(1977) 3 SCC 94] held as

under:

"It is thus clear that an extra

departmental agent is not a casual

worker but he holds a post under the

administrative control of the State. It is

apparent from the rules that the

employment of an extra departmental

agent is in a post which exists "apart

http://www.judis.nic.in

from" the person who happens to fill it at

any particular time. Though such a post

is outside the regular civil services, there

is no doubt it is a post under the State.

The tests of a civil post laid down by

Court in Kanak Chandra Dutta's case

(supra) are clearly satisfied in the case of

the extra departmental agents."

(emphasis laid by this Court)

A perusal of the above judgments of this Court

make it clear that Extra Departmental Agents

are not in the regular service of the postal

department, though they hold a civil post.

Thus, by no stretch of imagination can the post

of CDS be envisaged to be a feeder post to

Group 'C' posts for promotion."

30.In the light of the qualitative and quantitative discussions and

also taking note of the fact that the Petitioner was appointed as

Postman in Marthandam Post Office on 25.08.2010 and that, he got

himself enrolled under the 'New Pension Scheme' and was allotted with

Permanent Retirement Account No.110081266917 and also that, the

recovery towards 'New Pension Scheme' from his salary, was effected

from the month in which he joined as 'Postman' and the same is still

continued to be made by the Department, this Court is of the

considered view that the Petitioner's earlier service as 'CDS' cannot be

treated for any pensionary benefit. Furthermore, the Petitioner can

only be treated as a person having joined in the service on 26.08.2010

http://www.judis.nic.in

and by no stretch of imagination, he cannot be characterized as the

person having entered into service before 01.01.2004. Apart from

that, the 'Gramin Dak Sevaks' do not come under the CCS (Pension)

Rules, which are applicable only to 'Regular Departmental Staff'.

31.A crucial fact, which one has to bear in mind that the 'Gramin

Dak Sevaks' are not required to perform the duty beyond the

maximum period of 5 hours per day. Further, as per Rule 3-A of the

Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement)

Rules, 2011, a Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union.

Hence, the Petitioner cannot be equated on par with the Central

Government Employees. Looking at from any angle, this Writ Petition

is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed.

32.In fine, this Writ Petition stands dismissed, leaving the parties

to bear their own costs.

Index:Yes y

Internet: Yes

Speaking order

WEB

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.VENUGOPAL, J.

AND

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

1.Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Union of India,

Kanniyakumari Division,

Nagercoil - 629 001.

2.The Registrar,

Central Administrative Tribunal, “

Madras Bench, -

Chennai - 600 001.

.P.No.5305 of 2018

WEB COPY

08.03.2019

http://www.judis.nic.in

Sunday, May 26, 2019

SB Order No 03/2019 : Insertion of Rule 49(6) in POSB (CBS) Manual regarding entry of interest in Passbooks of Savings and SSA accounts standing at EDBOs

FINANCIAL POWERS OF THE HEAD OF POSTAL DIVISION

Schedule - III SCHEDULE CONTAINING FINANCIAL POWERS

OF THE HEAD OF POSTAL DIVISION

For the purpose of this schedule the term Head of Postal Division includes Head of a Postal Division in Group 'A' and Group 'B' also includes Chief Postmaster, Senior Postmaster and Superintendant Foreign Post. The officers will exercise these powers as operational requirements in respect of offices/establishments under their administrative control.

The financial powers contained in this schedule are subject to the limitations and restrictions laid down in the Delegation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978 regarding the financial powers of the authorities subordinate to the President and they can be exercised only in respect of the Officers and the establishment under the control of the Director General (Posts).

The powers mentioned herein shall be exercised subject to the condition that expenditure involved shall be met from the funds placed at his disposal by competent authority.

No work requiring sanction of higher authorities may be sanctioned by the Officer in parts as two or more distinct works.

These powers shall not be delegated further nor any person shall be authorized to exercise these powers.

Financial Powers contained in this Schedule shall be exercised keeping in view the conditions and limitations contained in the Delegation of financial Powers, General Financial Rules, Financial Hand Book Volume-I, Fundamental Rules & Supplementary Rules, Departmental Code Books, Manuals and instructions/guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance from time to time.

All conditions/instructions as contained in column-4 of the schedule shall be complied with while exercising financial powers so delegated.

Schedule-III

Schedule of Financial Powers of Head of Postal Division

Sl. No.	Item of Expenditure	Extent of Financial Powers Delegated	Rules, orders, authority
1	2	3	4
1	ADDITIONS TO PAY
	(a) Overtime allowance: (for all eligible categories)	As per monthly ceiling prescribed by the concerned Circle/Regional Head for the divisions under them	Subject to OTA Rules and also general orders issued by the department from time to time.
	(c) Boat allowance to Postmen, village postmen and such other officials who have to incur expenditure regularly on boat hire	Up to a limit of Rs.500/- in a month in any one case	MOF (C) endst. No. F.56-1/ 47 dated 20-10- 47
	(d) May sanction house rent allowance to holders of permanent and temporary posts provided that: - i)The allowance is at the rates sanctioned by Government, and ii)The holders of the posts are entitled to rent free accommodation and no rent free accommodation is available at the place	As indicated in column (2)	DGP&T No. 18/11/58-CI dated 28-11-58
	(e) Outstation allowance to village postmen	May sanction at the rate and scale fixed by Directorate	Subject to general orders issued by the department from time to time
2	CONTINGENT EXPENDITURE (NON- RECURRING)
	(a) May sanction non-recurring contingent expenditure, powers for which are not provided for specifically.	Up to Rs.5,000/- in each case.	Schedule-V read with Rule-13 (2) of DFPRs
	(b) Embedding of cash/mail chests, purchase of technical	Up to Rs.5,000/- in each case	Schedule-V read with Rule-13 (2) of DFPRs

	books/maps, painting of Letter boxes, Sign boards, notice boards etc.
	(c) Purchase of equipments and consumables connected with computers and other equipments	Up to Rs.5,000/- in each case	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(d) May purchase furniture and fittings for offices, including tiffin rooms, rest rooms, holiday homes, inspection rooms/quarters etc.	Per annum per office:- Divisional Office- Rs.30,000/- Sub-Divisional Office- Rs.15,000/- Gazetted HO-Rs. 75,000/- HSG HO/MDG/HSG SO -Rs.50,000/- LSG SO-Rs.30,000/- Time Scale SO- Rs.15,000/- EDSO/EDBO-Rs.5,000/-	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs. The power delegated is subject to overall annual ceiling of Rs. Two Lakh only for the Division as a whole and also after framing of necessary norms on the subject by Directorate
3	Contingent Expenditure (Recurring)
	(a)May sanction all rates and taxes legally assessed on buildings and vehicles in their charge	Full Powers	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(b)Water, electricity and Gas charges	Full Powers	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(c) Renting of buildings for office use	Without FRAC:- A1 & A city-Up to Rs.5,000/-per month B1 & B2 city-Up to Rs.4,000/- per month Other cities-Up to Rs.3,000/- per month	Rule-13 (2) and Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs This is subject to hiring of building as per SOA, prevailing market rate of rent being paid by Govt./Semi-Govt. organizations for similar type of accommodation and Govt. approved rate of rent for the locality. A quarterly report on all such hiring cases should be sent to PMG with a copy to the DAP. These case should also be seen at the time of inspection
	(d) Fixed Stationary charges and fixed contingent allowance	Full Powers in accordance with the scale/norms fixed by	Rule 341 of Postal Manual Vol.-II

		the department from time to time
	(e) Replacing, repairing, cleaning, oiling, shifting, purchase of spare parts for repairing, for electrical/light fittings, fans, air and water coolers, typewriters, instruments, minor equipments & apparatus, including electric stencil cutters (duplicating machines) telephone instruments, photocopiers, fax machines, franking machines etc	Up to Rs.2,000/- in each case.	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(f) Repair of boats, bicycles, mopeds, motorcycles, 3 wheelers, tricycles, handcarts	Up to Rs.500/- in each case	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(g) Maintenance of gardens	Up to Rs.1,000/- per month in each case	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(h) Legal charges, and obtaining copies of judgements	May incur an amount payable at the rate and scale fixed by the Govt. from time to time	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(i) Advertisement charges for calling tenders for mail contracts, buildings etc, and advertisements of products, services and initiatives of the Department	Up to Rs.5,000/- in each case through DAVP	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs. Advertisements to be released through DAVP only.
	(j) Hiring of accommodation for holding examinations and for other purposes e.g. holding customer meet etc.	Up to Rs. 5000/- in each case	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(k) Hiring of generators, water/air coolers, heaters, air- conditioner, other equipment like franking machines etc.	Up to Rs.5,000/- in each case.	The power should be utilized only after issue of norms/guidelines on the subject by Postal Directorate.
	(l) Hot and cold weather charges	Up to Rs.5,000/- only in each case	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(m) Emergent purchase of articles of stock & stationery not ordinarily available in the stock	Up to Rs.50,000/- per annum after obtaining Non-Availability Certificate from PSD concerned.	Rule 13 (2) read with Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs.
4	Repairs of Buildings
	(a) May sanction petty works -	Up to Rs. 10000/-	Annexure to Schedule V

	per annum per departmental building		of DFPRs
	(b) May sanction annual or special repairs/maintenance expenses to Departmental buildings - per annum per building	Up to Rs.15,000/-	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
	(c) May sanction petty works/special repairs/ maintenance expenses in rented building	Up to Rs.2,500/- only per rented building per annum in each case	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs and subject to the following conditions:- (i) Such expenditure may be incurred only if the landlord refuses to meet the expenditure. (ii) The expenditure should be deducted from the rent payable to landlord and other conditions stipulated in Rule 391 of FHB Vol I should be fulfilled.
5	(i) May sanction expenditure on carriage of mails by modes other than rail and air transport	Up to Rs. 1,000/- per month in each case	Rule 13 (2) of DFPRs
	(ii) May sanction temporary arrangements for conveyance of mails without calling tenders	Up to Rs.5,000/- in each case for a period of three months only	Rule 13 (2) of DFPRs
	(iii) May sanction payment for provision of escorts for carriage of cash	Full Powers in respect of escorts from State Police Force	Annexure to Schedule V of DFPRs
6	Write-Off
	(i) May write off value of spoiled/damaged postage/recruitment fee stamps	Up to Rs. 1000/- in each case, not exceeding Rs.50,000/- per annum	OM No. 6-14/87-Fin.Co- ord dated 26-3-2001
	(ii) May write off articles of dead stock, used up equipment	In all cases where original price of stock was not more than Rs. 1,000/- subject to an overall limit of Rs.50,000/- per annum	OM No. 6-14/87-Fin.Co- ord dated 26-3-2001


7	Refunds
	(i) Refund of postage on articles which have been maliciously sent unpaid for the purpose of annoying the addressee	Full Powers	OM No. 6-14/87-Fin.Co- ord dated 26-3-2001
	(ii) Refund of coins, currency notes, unused loose postage stamps, unused postcards, empty unused embossed envelopes or stamp booklets found in the letter boxes or at post office counters and credited in the accounts of the office	Full Powers	OM No. 6-14/87-Fin.Co- ord dated 26-3-2001
	(iii) Refund of amounts over paid by or short paid to a member of the public and found excess in the accounts of an office	Full Powers	OM No. 6-14/87-Fin.Co- ord dated 26-3-2001
	(iv) Refund of earnest money received from tenderers with their tenders in respect of contracts	Full Powers in respect of tenders within the competency of divisional head	OM No. 6-14/87-Fin.Co- ord dated 26-3-2001
	(v) Refund of air surcharge or the difference between the air mail fee-cum-postage, in case of surcharged air mail articles which are subjected to delay beyond the time ordinarily taken for the delivery thereof consequent on such articles being sent by the surface route due to fault of service	Full Powers	OM No. 6-14/87-Fin.Co- ord dated 26-3-2001
8	Miscellaneous
	(a) Printing of rate charts, mailers, brochures and other material required for publicizing the products, services and initiatives of the Department - and distribution to post offices, marketing executives and customers	Up to Rs.10,000/-per annum for all activities taken together	Rule 13 (2) of DFPRs


(b) Holding of customer meets: preparation folders, hiring/transport of equipment/staff, tea/coffee/other soft drinks & snacks, and other activities necessary for conducting customer meets	Up to Rs.5,000/- for each meet with a ceiling of Rs.1,000/- on hiring, Rs.100/- per head on tea, snacks etc. and Rs.50/- per head on stationery and ancillaries	Rule 13 (2) of DFPRs
(c) May provide to members of staff undertaking any activity that facilitates marketing of products/services or initiatives of the Department:	Per annum per person:- i)Visiting Cards-Up to Rs.500/- ii) Reimbursement of cell phone charges-Up to Rs.4,000/- A maximum of ten persons in a Class-I division and six persons in Class-II division	Rule 13 (2) of DFPRs