SECRETARY DEPTT OF POST Vs. CHANDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has been placed before a larger bench by the reason of the order dated 22/1/1999. That order notes that counsel stated that there were conflicting views of this court as regards Rule 9 (3) of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants has fairly stated that on 13/2/1997 the said rule had been amended to cure the defect that was found in it by this court in the order made on 10/7/1995 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. . of 1990 (CC No. 457) , Secy. , Ministry of communications v. S. Gundu Achary. This court there agreed with the conclusion that had been reached by the central Administrative tribunal in the case of Peter j. D'souza v. Supdt. of Post Offices that the said rule was violative of Article 14 of the constitution of India.

(3.) The judgment which is said to take a different view is Union of India v. Kamleshwar prasad We find, however, that the constitutional validity of the said rule was not in question. What was held there was that having regard to the said rule, the tribunal in that case could not have made orders for payment of allowances for the period the respondents were kept off duty. In other words, it was assumed that the said rule was valid.