UNION OF INDIA Vs. LALA RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for writ is before us to question correctness of order dated 26.4.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.240/2004. By the order aforesaid, the Tribunal accepted the original application and set aside order dated 10.9.2003 passed by the Superintendent of Police Offices, Pali Division, Pali Marwar invoking powers under proviso to Rule 6(b) of the Post & Telegram, Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.

(2.) In brief, the factual matrix of the case is that appointment was accorded to the original applicant (respondent herein) as Extra-Departmental Agent on 7.4.2000. While giving appointment with the respondents no procedure as prescribed under the Rules was adhered. The Postmaster General, Head Office, Jodhpur Division, Jodhpur under a letter dated 01.8.2003 advised to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Pali Division, Pali to process regular selection as per Rules relating to the post of Extra-Departmental Agents and while doing so, specific reference of the respondent and one Shri Hukam Singh was also given. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Pali after receiving the advise passed order dated 10.9.2003, terminating the respondent from service by invoking powers under proviso to Rule 6(b) of the Rules of 1964. The learned Tribunal while accepting the original application held that the Postmaster General under the letter dated 1.8.2003 advised to initiate process of regular selection and, therefore, the requirement was to continue the original applicant in service. Aggrieved by the same, the instant petition for writ is preferred, wherein notices to the respondent was issued on 25.5.2007. By the same order operation of judgment passed by the Tribunal too was stayed.

(3.) In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent was terminated from service by invoking powers under proviso to Rule 6(b) of the Rules of 1964 and that does not suffer from any illegality. As per learned counsel reliance on letter dated 01.8.2003, by the Tribunal in the instant matter is absolutely unwarranted. The respondent, according to the petitioner was appointed on casual basis and that too without adhering the procedure prescribed, as such, the termination from service was rightly made in accordance with the Rules concern.