Madras High Court
All India Association Of Postal ... vs The Union Of India on 29 August, 2023
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
All India Association of Postal Drivers
and Artisans,
Mail Motor Service,
(Regn.No.1264/2001/MDU),
Represented by its General Secretary,
Mail Mortor Service,
Head Post Office,
Dindigul - -624 001,
Dindigul District. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Government of India,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Government of India,
New Delhi – 110 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
3.The Director General,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Government of India,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
4.The Director,
(Staff Relations & Legal),
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Government of India,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
5.The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle,
Trivandrum – 695 033,
Kerala. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records
relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the fourth respondent herein in
Nos. 09/03/2010 - SR dated 03.11.2014 and 02.03.2015, quash the same and
further direct the respondents herein to recognise petitioner association as
Service Association as per the Central Civil Services (Recognition of service
Association) Rules 1993 within a reasonable time as may be specified by this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sundar
For Respondents : Mr.D.Saravanan
Central Government Senior Standing
Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/9
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2. The petitioner is an Association registered under the Trade Union Act,
1926. It submitted request to the Department for recognising the drivers and
artisans of mail motor service as a separate category and recognise them. This
request was negatived by the fourth respondent vide communications dated
02.03.2015. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the
contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and
called upon this Court to set aside the impugned communication and grant
relief as prayed for.
4. The learned Central Government Senior Standing
Counsel submitted that the present writ petition may not be maintainable. In
any event, the impugned order deserves to be sustained in the light of the earlier
dated 12.12.2011 in W.P(MD)No.6577 of 2010. He pressed for dismissal of the
writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
5. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
materials on record.
6. The petitioner association represents the postal drivers and artisans
working in mail motor service. They belong to Group C category. They
wanted the Department to recognise the drivers and artisans belonging to the
mail motor service as a distinct category. The Department refused.
Challenging the stand of the Department, the petitioner filed W.P(MD)No.6577
of 2010. The writ petition was dismissed in the following terms:
“18. In the light of the rival contentions, what is to be
seen is (I) whether the decision taken by the respondents that
the Drivers and Artisans belonging to the Mail Motor Service
do not form a distinct category, is justiciable or not and (II)
whether the categorisation of Officers in Mail Motor Service
would amount to discrimination.
19. On the first question, the answer is not very difficult
to be found. A Division Bench of this Court has already held
in K.V.Sridharan vs. S.Sundaramoorthy {2009 (3) MLJ 1320}
that in the absence of any law for recognition of trade unions,
a writ petition for the enforcement of administrative orders,
cannot be maintained. The relevant portion of the order of the
Division Bench reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
''3. .... The said Act does not make any provision
for recognition of such a union. Any recognition of
union, even if it is union relating to the employees of
the Central Government, is governed by some
departmental circulars. Those circulars are
administrative in nature and not statutory. Therefore,
those circulars also cannot be enforced in a writ
petition....''
20. It appears that the said decision was attempted to
be distinguished by a learned Judge in All India Postal
Employees Union – Group C, Thiruvannamalai vs. Chief Post
Master General, Chennai {2011 (1) MLJ 1229}. But the same
was reserved by the another Division Bench. Therefore, the
decision taken by the respondents that the Drivers and
Artisans do not form a distinct category is not justiciable. The
petitioner cannot also plead discrimination since the Officers
and the Drivers and Artisans, cannot be considered to belong
to the same category, merely because they are employed in
Mail Motor Service.”
Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.A(MD)No.186 of 2012. When the
matter was taken up for final disposal on 05.08.2014, the learned counsel
appearing for the Association submitted that it would be sufficient if they are
permitted to submitted a fresh application to the third respondent for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
recognition of their Service Association as per the provisions of the Central
Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations) Rules 1993. Since the
then Standing Counsel did not have any objection to pass such an order, the
Writ Appeal was disposed of in the following terms:
“4. In such circumstances, it is made clear that it
would be open to the appellant to submit a fresh application,
to the third respondent, with regard to the recognition of the
appellant as Service Association, as per the provisions of the
Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Associations)
Rules, 1993, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such
application, the third respondent shall consider the same and
pass appropriate orders thereon, as per the said Rules, as
expeditiously as possible.”
Pursuant to the said direction, the impugned order came to be passed.
7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Central Government Senior
Standing Counsel, the issue that has now been raised had already been raised in
W.P(MD)No.6577 of 2010 and rejected. The contentions were negatived. It is
true that the petitioner association filed W.A(MD)No.186 of 2012 challenging
the order dated 12.12.2011 dismissing W.P(MD)No.6577 of 2010. But before
the Hon'ble Division Bench the association did not pursue their
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
challenge. Instead they only sought liberty to knock the doors of the
Department for the same request again. The Hon'ble Division Bench did not
interfere with the order passed by the learned single Judge. Mere liberty was
given to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and direction was given
to the authority to dispose it of. But the Hon'ble Division Bench did not say
that the authority would consider the petitioner's request dehors the order
passed in W.P(MD)No.6577 of 2010. Instead what was directed that the
authority will consider the petitioner's request and pass appropriate orders
thereon as per the rules. Since the petitioner's request has been rejected for the
second time, we are back to square one. The earlier order passed against the
petitioner in W.P(MD)No.6577 of 2010 is very much holding the field. I
therefore have no other option but to sustain the impugned order and dismiss
the writ petition.
8. The writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.08.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Government of India,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Government of India,
New Delhi – 110 001.
3.The Director General,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Government of India,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
4.The Director,
(Staff Relations & Legal),
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications and
Information Technology,
Government of India,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
5.The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle,
Trivandrum – 695 033,
Kerala.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
MGA
W.P(MD)No.6320 of 2015
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
