ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated 19th August, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1031 of 2009 titled Ashok Kumar Maheshwari and another v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication & I.T., and others dismissing their petition against the order passed by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Kasganj, for taking the work of another post from the petitioners. The petitioners are Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Sub Postmasters (SPM) who were appointed after selection. The petitioners were posted in Dholana and Kinawa Districts, Kashi Ram Nagar (Kasganj), U.P. Both sub post offices had one post of GDS MD-MC for delivery of mails to the public and conveyance of mail bags. Since GDS MD-MC had been promoted/transferred, the petitioners were also entrusted with their work which was challenged by the petitioners. The pleas of the petitioners were contested by respondents contending inter alia that there was a ban on filling up the vacant post in the office of two or more than two officials in terms of departmental order dated 17th February, 2004. It was asserted that in terms of Rule 71 of B.O. Rules VII edition, the petitioners were paid double duty allowance which had been accepted by them. The respondents also challenged the plea of the petitioners on the ground that their work load was found to be 202.79 minutes and 159.96 minutes against 300 minutes, i.e., five hours' work everyday. The workload of GDS MD for Dholana and Kinawa Districts were also got assessed and combination of the workload was justified as per the recommendations of Savoor Committee which was rather relied on by the petitioners. The Tribunal has considered and noted that the petitioners' work and conduct which was governed by EDAs Conduct Rules, 1964, which rules had been replaced by GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rule, 2001 and the change in nomenclature from extra departmental to GDS. It had been held that it did not lead to any alteration in the existing terms and conditions of employment as per the EDAs (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964. It has also been noticed that Rule 3 permits combination of duties, however, the duties are not to be beyond a maximum period of five hours in a day. Rule 7(8) also contemplates combining of duties to manage the work, for additional work a combined duty allowance is also payable. The petitioners were paid double duty allowance. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the double duty allowance was accepted without prejudice to their rights and contentions, however, since Rules permits combination of duties and payment of double duty allowance, acceptance of double duty allowance under protest and without prejudice to rights and contentions and pleas and contentions of the petitioners will not make the order directing them to perform the duties of GDS MD-MC also as illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute that the duties of mail delivery and carriage of mails are not confined only to GDS employees but are also performed by the employees working on higher post in towns and cities though such employees draw higher pay. If that be so, the petitioners cannot have a grievance to perform the duties of GDS MD-MC in their respective sub post offices. The Tribunal has also noticed that the qualification for recruitment of GDS SPM and GDS BPM are similar. It has also been noticed that in single-handed delivery post offices, even the post master carries out the function of delivery of mails.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken the same pleas before this Court which were taken before the Tribunal which have been considered and dealt cogently and repelled with reasons. The inferences by the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances cannot be faulted on any of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on their behalf.

(3.) For the foregoing reasons, there are no grounds to interfere in the facts and circumstances with the order of the Tribunal dismissing the petition of the petitioners. The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is dismissed.