2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4893
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunil Thomas, J, Hon'ble Ms. V. Rama Mathew, ACJ
Seeja K – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 180/00442/2019 | Original Application No. 180/00465/2019 | Original Application No. 180/00392/2021 | Original Application No. 180/00529/2021
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. M.R. Hariraj, Senior Advocate; Mr. K. Rajagopal; Mr. M.B. Jayaraj; Mr. Viswajith C.K.; Mrs. Rekha Vasudevan; Mr. V. Sajithkumar; Mr. Vivek A.V.
For the Respondents: N. Anilkumar; Brijesh A.S.; O.M. Shalina
Age bar for initial GDS engagement applies to initial appointments only; re-engagements as substitutes can continue until superannuation on a stopgap basis, avoiding automatic regularization.
Headnote:(A) Laws and sections cited: Clause 3-B, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020 (minimum and maximum age 18 and 40 years with permissible relaxation); Annexure A5 Para 8(ii)(a) (competent authority must be fully satisfied that the Substitute possesses the prescribed qualifications before taking charge); Annexure A2 dated 11.4.2019 (any person over 40 years of age was not eligible for engagement as Substitute or on stopgap arrangement); reference to Balakrishnan v. Secretary to Government [2005 (3) KLT 362] for age engagement logic; constitutional context regarding equality (Articles 14 and 16) cited in arguing or rejecting discrimination; Rule 3-B(II) (education qualifications) as juxtaposed with age eligibility; general principle that maximum age is tied to initial engagement and may not automatically bind re-engagements, as discussed in paras 11-14 and 16-17.
(B) Key legal principles and points discussed: (i) Age limitation fixed for initial engagement of GDS may not automatically apply to subsequent re-engagements of Substitutes; (ii) Age-related eligibility in Annexure A5 Para 8(ii)(a) concerns qualifications/competencies rather than the age bar for re-engagement; (iii) Re-engagement of Substitutes can be permitted till superannuation on a stopgap basis, with preference to continuing substitutes over freshers/juniors; (iv) Mere irregular engagements cannot automatically yield regularization; (v) Court’s approach is to avoid substituting its view where lower court/tribunal decisions are not perverse, applying a logic akin to the Balakrishnan reasoning.
(C)
Facts of the case:
All applicants are Substitutes locally engaged on temporary/stopgap arrangements in vacant Gramin Dak Sevak posts across divisions/sub-divisions; Annexure A2 (dated 11.4.2019) states that maximum age for GDS appointment is 40 years and that this bar also applies to substitutes; there was no formal termination order; some applicants continued to be engaged with IDs linked to Aadhaar and training in digitization; several OA proceedings were instituted seeking restraint from adverse action or challenging disengagement; the applicants sought continuation as Substitutes until retirement, not regularization. Facts of the case (quotations): - "All the applicants herein are Substitutes locally engaged on temporary/stopgap arrangements in the vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks" (para 1). - "Annexure A2 is a communication dated 11.4.2019 ... any person over 40 years of age was not eligible for engagement as Substitute or on stopgap arrangement" (paras 3, 7-8). - "They have not been given a formal letter of engagement or disengagement" but had long-standing engagement with training and Aadhaar-linked IDs (paras 7-8). - "the age limit for appointment as that of GDS was prescribed as 40 years" and the respondents argued disengagement based on Annexure A2 (paras 8-9). - The claims included a challenge to the interpretation of Rule/Guidelines and to the potential for regularization (paras 5, 6, 15).
(D)
Findings of Court:
The tribunal held that (i) Annexure A5’s para 8(ii)(a) does not refer to age; (ii) the age bar, if any, applicable to Substitutes can apply only to original engagement and not to their subsequent re-engagements; (iii) the applicants’ relief to continue as Substitutes till superannuation is justified; (iv) the petitions are allowed in part to the extent stated. Findings of Court (quotations): - "Evidently, the engagement of applicant in various post offices ... have not been given a formal letter of engagement or disengagement. However, the reply statements ... specifically prescribes that the age limit for engagement even as Substitute shall be 40 years. Upper age limit for appointment as GDS is prescribed as 40 years" (paras 7-8). - "We feel that the same analogy can be extended to the case of re-engagement of the employees as Substitutes" (para 14). - "Having held that the age restriction in Annexure A5 would apply only in the case of original appointment of Substitutes and not in their subsequent re-engagements, we are inclined to allow the Original Applications" (para 16). - "OA are allowed in part, declaring that the applicants are eligible to be continued to be engaged as Gramin Dak Sevaks in the available vacancies on stopgap/Substitute basis ... till each of the applicants attains the age of superannuation. OA are allowed in part to the above extent. No order as to costs" (paras 17). (E)
Issues: (i) Whether Annexure A2 and the 40-year age bar can be interpreted to govern substitutes’ re-engagements; (ii) Whether re-engagement of substitutes can be continued beyond the initial age limit and whether this constitutes de facto regularization; (iii) Whether Annexure A5 para 8(ii)(a) relates to age or only to qualifications; (iv) Whether the relief sought by continuing substitutes up to superannuation is permissible. (F) Ratio decidendi: (i) The maximum age limit fixed for initial engagement of GDS applies to initial appointment and not to subsequent re-engagements of Substitutes; (ii) Para 8(ii)(a) of Annexure A5 does not address age; (iii) The analogy to Kerala Education Rules and Balakrishnan supports treating re-engagements differently from initial appointments; (iv) A practice of continuing substitutes on a stopgap basis till superannuation is permissible where the pleadings limit relief to continuation as Substitutes and not regularization; (v) The tribunal’s caution against converting irregular engagements into a regular appointment is acknowledged, but the relief granted is specifically for continuation as substitutes. (G)
Result: OA are allowed in part; declaring that the applicants are eligible to be continued to be engaged as Gramin Dak Sevaks in the available vacancies on stopgap/substitute basis in preference to freshers and juniors, and the respondents shall continue to engage them as and when situation arises till each applicant attains the age of superannuation. No order as to costs. (H) Parties: Applicants seeking relief (substitute Gramin Dak Sevaks) and Respondents (Department of Posts and related officers) - with no formal termination orders but long-term engagement challenged; common order issued by the Tribunal. (Dissenting opinions): None reported in the material provided.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts: substitutes & 40 age cap (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. age-limit challenge: initial vs re-engagement (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. engagements evidenced; lack of formal letters (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. a5 vs 2002 rules; eligibility vs qualification (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. original engagement rule applies to substitutions only (Para 14) |
| 6. no regularization; substitution status preserved (Para 15 , 16) |
| 7. partial relief: continue substitution till superannuation (Para 17) |
Common ORDER
Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –
All the applicants herein are Substitutes locally engaged on temporary/stopgap arrangements in the vacant posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks, that arise due to discharge/resignation/promotion/death/leave of the incumbent Gramin Dak Sevaks in the respective Postal Divisions/Sub Divisions of the applicants. According to the applicants, they were being engaged in the concerned Post Offices within the Postal Divisions/Sub Division since long. It was stated that by communication dated 11.4.2019 produced as Annexure A2 in OA No. 392 of 2021, issued by the 2nd respondent, addressed to the 3rd respondent, it was clarified that since the maximum age for appointment of GDS was 40 years as on the date of notification, same age bar would apply in the case of Substitute for re- engagement also. It thus provided that persons above the age of 40 years shall not be engaged as Substitutes or on stopgap arrangements as Gramin Dak Sevaks. Hence, some of the applicants, apprehending that they are likely to be dis-engaged, have approached this Tribunal. Some of the other applicants contend that they had been disengaged consequent to the above communication.
2. In OAs Nos. 442 of 2019, 465 of 2019 and 392 of 2021, noting that there was no formal termination order, by interim orders respondents were directed not to take any adverse action against the applicants therein till the reply statement was filed. Those applicants are continuing, in the light of the interim order. In OA No. 529 of 2021, applicants contended that they have already been disengaged. Hence, no such interim orders were passed in that OA.
3. Annexure A2 is a communication dated 11.4.2019 issued by the Assistant Director General (GDS/PCC) to the Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, wherein it was prescribed that any person over 40 years of age was not eligible for engagement as Substitute or on stopgap arrangement. It was also stated therein that the said communication was issued in purported implementation of the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 554 of 2016 and the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in OP (CAT) No. 201 of 2017, arising from the said OA.
4. The stipulation that the re-engagement of Substitutes are also governed by the age bar fixed for initial engagement of GDS was assailed by the applicants, essentially on the strength of the guidelines for regulating the Substitutes/provisional arrangement made in place of regular Gramin Dak Sevaks laid down by a letter dated 21.10.2002, and produced as Annexure A5 in OA No. 392 of 2021. It was contended that in Annexure A5 no age limit was prescribed for being engaged as Substitute. It was contended that even if there was a stipulation of 40 years of age for engagement as Substitute, the same can be insisted upon only at the time of initial engagement and not for re-engagement and the Substitutes who are presently continuing cannot be relieved from their services on the above premise.
5. Annexure A2 was assailed by the applicants essentially on two grounds:
Firstly, it was contended that OA No. 554 of 2016 as upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in OP (CAT) No. 201 of 2017 had nothing to do with the age limit of Substitute employees. It was contended that hence, the claim in Annexure A2, that it was issued in purported implementation of the said order/judgment of the Tribunal/Hon’ble High Court was not legally correct. Secondly, it was contended that the move to discontinue the service of the applicants was illegal, unjus
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
