##PAGE1##

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00014 of 2017 Bhupendra Kumar Shukla Vs. UOI & Ors.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00014 of 2017

Dated, this 29th day of January, 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member- Judicial

Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

Bhupendra Kumar Shukla, aged about 29 years, S/o Sri Dharmendra

Shukla, Resident of Village Malaha, Post Salahpur (Mahali), District

Sitapur.

…..Applicant

By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar

VERSUS

1. The Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Communication

and IT, Department of Posts (Establishment Division), Dak

Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow-226001.

3. Superintendent of Post Office, Sitapur Division, District Sitapur-

261001.

…..Respondent

By Advocate: Naveen Chandra Upadhyay

ORDER (ORAL)

Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

In this case relating to termination of engagement of Gramin Dak

Sevak (GDS, hereafter), the applicant has sought following reliefs:

“(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated

14.03.2016 passed by the opposite party no. 3 as contained in

Annexure No. 8 to this Original Application.

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite

parties to restore the applicant as the same capacity as before passing

the order dated 14.03.2016 and allow for work and to pay the

allowances regularly.

(iii) Pass any such order or direction as the circumstances of the case may

admit of.”

Page 1 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00014 of 2017 Bhupendra Kumar Shukla Vs. UOI & Ors.

2. After having been selected in response to the notification dated

10.05.2013 for the post of GDS BPM Kachura, the applicant was

engaged vide order dated 25.11.2013 and joined on the post on

31.11.2013. However, the respondents reviewed the process of

engagement and issued the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 under

rule 8(2) of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (GDS Rules,

hereafter) terminating the applicant’s service as well as cancelling the

entire process of engagement of GDS BPM Kachura. Aggrieved, the

applicant has preferred this OA.

3.1 The applicant contends that in the comparative chart of 9

candidates prepared by the respondents, he was placed at serial

number 1 while one Uma was placed in the 2^nd position and,

accordingly, he was selected for the post of GDS BPM Kachura;

however, following some complaint, his engagement was terminated

without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without recording

reasons which is in violation of principles of natural justice as well as

rule 4(3)(c) of the GDS Rules.

3.2 The applicant’s second objection is that the impugned order has

been passed by respondent no. 3 exceeding his jurisdiction as such

order can be passed only by a superior authority, i.e., respondent no. 2.

3.3 The applicant’s third contention is that he was at serial number

1 in the comparative chart prepared on the basis of the marks and

percentage mentioned in the applications of candidates and his service

could not have been terminated because the candidate at serial number

2 (Uma) filled wrong information. It is averred that the applicant did not

make any misrepresentation; further, Uma never claimed engagement

as GDS or made any complaint, rather she had informed the authorities

that her application may be treated as withdrawn.

Page 2 of 6

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00014 of 2017 Bhupendra Kumar Shukla Vs. UOI & Ors.

4.1 The respondents, on the other hand, state that the applicant’s

engagement has been terminated under rule 8(2) of GDS Rules and he

has been paid one month’s Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA,

hereafter) plus dearness allowance.

4.2 It is contended that the applicant’s engagement was reviewed by

the competent authority in the office of the Chief post Master General,

UP Circle, Lucknow and after finding certain irregularities of serious

nature, the competent authority ordered to cancel the whole p