ORDER (Oral)

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

The applicant is challenging the order dated 19^th March, 2016 by invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The applicant's contention is that he was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer on 07^th April, 2015 and worked as such till 19^th March, 2016. It is his contention that the services of the applicant came to be terminated by order dated 19^th March, 2016. No notice was issued to him before terminating his services. Therefore, the order is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. He further contends that he has put in more than one year of service and, therefore, notice ought to have been issued to him before termination.

2. Respondents filed their reply in which they contend that the applicant was appointed by way of stop-gap- arrangement. No appointment order has been issued in his favour. On the salary slip of the applicant, the applicant is described as an outsider. No due process of law was followed before making the appointment of the applicant. Advertisement was not issued. Therefore, the appointment of the applicant being a stop-gap-arrange was terminated without notice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Dighore and learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Charpe.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant Shri Dighore submits that the applicant has put in 240 days of continuous service. Therefore, the applicant acquires the mental of permanence. Therefore, the applicant ought to have been issued a notice of termination before actually terminating his services. He has placed reliance on the case of Khan Das Vs. Union of India, (1994) 27 Administrative Tribunals Cases 11 (Jodhpur Bench)

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant was appointed by way of stop-gap-arrangement. No appointment order was issued in his favour. He cannot claim permanency as his entry in the department was not lawful.

6. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on both the side. It is not in dispute that the applicant was appointed without following due process of law. There is nothing on record to show that the appointment of the applicant was on a permanent post. No advertisement was issued and, therefore, the appointment of the applicant was not in consonance with law and, therefore, the applicant cannot claim permanency.

7. The applicant was appointed without following due process of law. Admittedly, no advertisement was issued. The pay slip of the applicant shows that he was described as an outsider. Applicant claims that he was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer. In that case, his Pay Slip should have reflected his designation as Gramin Dak Sevak (Mail Deliverer). On the contrary, the pay slip shows his designation as an outsider. This goes to show that the appointment of the applicant was a stop-gap-arrangement. In this view of the matter, applicant cannot claim permanency. The applicant has placed reliance on the case of Khan Das (supra). In the case of Khan Das (supra), the employee was appointed as EDBPM at Village Bhagasani in the year 1991 and he worked there as such till 29^th April, 1993. In the case of Khan Das (supra), the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal held thus:

“.....7. This Tribunal has held in some of the OAs that Post Office is an Industry and as such the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable to the Post Office. It is admitted by the respondents that the applicant is working as EDBPM, Bhagasani, from 28-12-1991 and Mangilal Suthar has been duly selected on that post, who came to be appointed by order dated 29-4-1993. It is thus undisputed that the applicant has worked on the post of EDBPM, Bhagasani, from 28-12-1991 till the order in respect of Mangilal Suthar, respondent 4 in OA No. 146 of 1993 was issued. Thus, there is no doubt that the applicant has worked on the post of EDBPM for more than 240 days and as such the prov