DBCWP No.6246/2011

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJATHAN AT

JODHPUR

:ORDER:

Union of India & Ors.

Vs. Gopa Ram

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6246/2011

Date of Order ::

24^th September 2011.

:PRESENT:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA

Mr.Vinit Kumar Mathur]

Mr.M.S.Godara

] for the petitioners

<><>

BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioners Union of India

through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication (Department of

Post), the Superintendent of Post Office, Sirohi, and the

Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Jalore, seek to question

the order dated 05.04.2011 whereby the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('the CAT'/’the Tribunal’) has

allowed the Original Application (OA No.231/2008) filed by the

applicant-respondent Shri Gopa Ram, who had been working as

Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master ('GDSBPM') at the Post

Office Safada, District Jalore; and who stated the grievance that

he was illegally deprived of the employment from 29.11.2006 and

his representation was unjustifiably turned down under the

impugned communication dated 18.07.2007.

Put in brief, the relevant facts and background aspects of

DBCWP No.6246/2011

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram

-2-

the matter are as follows: The applicant-respondent submitted in

the said OA that in response to the notification dated 17.08.2002

inviting applications for the vacant post of GDSBPM at village

Safada, he applied being eligible therefor; and came to be

appointed by the order dated 24.12.2002, copy whereof was not

given to him but he was handed over the charge of the said post

of GDSBPM on 30.12.2002. The applicant-respondent,

thereafter, referred to several repeated acts and actions

whereby the orders were issued by the petitioners Nos.2 and 3

for taking the charge from him and for handing over the charge

back to him after a short break of 2-3 days. The applicant

asserted that he continued to work on the post of GDSBPM

Safada until 29.11.2006 although the authorities repeated the

said process a number of times where the charge was taken over

by the Mail Overseer only in order to give him a break; and the

charge was again handed over to him after 2-3 days.

The applicant-respondent stated the grievance that

ultimately, he was relieved on 29.11.2006 in compliance of the

orders issued by the authorities and despite making a

representation dated 06.12.2006, he was not reinstated; and

instead, by the impugned communication dated 18.07.2007, his

prayer for reinstatement was declined while alleging that his

appointment itself had not been legal and regular. The case of

the applicant-respondent before the Tribunal was that since the

date of joining i.e., 30.12.2002 and until the date of relieving i.e.,

29.11.2006, he had worked continuously on the post of GDSBPM

for nearly four years; and only the artificial breaks were inserted

DBCWP No.6246/2011

Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gopa Ram

-3-

in his service so as to prevent him from earning the higher status

and to deprive him of the benefits envisaged under the GDS

(Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 ['the GDS Rules']. The

applicant submitted that while ignoring the artificial breaks, he

ought to be treated as having continuously served and hence,

the impugned orders for termination of his service deserve to be

set aside. The applicant also submitted that he had been

appointed properly and after due scrutiny of the applications; and

it was an afterthought when the authorities alleged some

irregularity or illegality in his appointment. The applicant further

asserted that even on such an afterthought, his services could

not have been terminated without an opportunity of being heard.

It was further the case of the applican