Ashok Kumar Maheshwari And ... vs Union Of India And Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 315 Del

*                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                                 W.P. (C.) No.397/2010

%                            Date of Decision: 20.01.2010

Ashok Kumar Maheshwari and Another                .... Petitioners
                  Through Mr.Shoeb Shakeel, Advocate.

                                       Versus

Union of India and others                                      .... Respondents
            Through                    Mr.Rajeeve Mehra, Sr.Advocate with
                                       Ms.Akriti, Advocate for the respondent
                                       Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.      Whether reporters of Local papers may be                   YES
        allowed to see the judgment?
2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                      NO
3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in                  NO
        the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

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.

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.

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.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

JANUARY 20, 2010                                 MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'k/Dev'