OA No. 556/2012. Case: A. Santhosh Kumar Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices and The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | OA No. 556/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Millu Dandapani, Advocate, ACGSC |
| Judges | K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J) and K. George Joseph, Member (Ad.) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | June 13, 2013 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
K.B.S. Rajan, Member (J), (Ernakulam Bench)
-
The matter is short and simple. The applicant claims that he was a part-time casual labourer in Respondents' organization and had served for more than 240 days in 2011. He is a matriculate and his case is that in accordance with the provisions of Annexure-1 DG Posts Letter No. 17-141/88-EDC & Trg, dated 6th June, 1988, part-time casual labourers have a preferential claim for appointment as GDS compared to the general candidates and the request of the applicant has not been acceded to. According to the applicant, the Tribunal on many an occasion considered the above point and held that part time contingent employees/full time contingent employees, as a class, have preference in recruitment to the post of ED. In this regard, the applicant has relied upon the following:-
(a) Order reported in (2000) 1 ATJ 63
(b) Order dated 27-08-2003 in OA No. 534 of 2003.
(c) Order dated 04-09-2001 in OA No. 571 of 2001
(d) Order dated 10-06-2005 in OA No. 3/2005 which order has been upheld by the High Court in W.P. No. 33732/2005
-
Respondents have published certain notification calling for application for appointment of Mail Deliverer, in Naruvanmoodu Sub-Post Office, Karamana Sub Post Office and Poozhanad Post Office. Annexure A-6 series refers. Applicant filed a representation vide Annexure A-7. This request was renewed by a subsequent representation vide Annexure A-8, wherein the applicant had cited certain examples also, vide Annexure A-9 order in OA No. 109 of 2010 and also another OA No. 785 of 2010 and 85 and 90 of 2011. In all these cases, either the Tribunal or the High Court had been consistently holding that part time employees have preference over general candidates. As no action was taken, the applicant has approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:-
-
Direct the respondents to consider the applicant along with similarly situated contingent employees for appointment to the post of GDS, MD, Naruvamoodu Sub Post Office, Karamana Sub Post Office and at Poozhanad Post Office and GDS BPM Peppara B.O. in preference to open market candidates.
-
Declare that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Annexure A1 and direct the respondents to take action accordingly.
-
Direct the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexure A7 and A8 representation in the light of Annexure A2, A3, A4, A9, A10 and A11.
-
Direct the respondents to proceed with Annexure A6 only after...
-
To continue reading
Request your trial