Tuesday, July 31, 2018

 


 வரப்போகிற    கமிட்டி பரிந்துரைகள் சில...

1. கமலேஷ் சந்திரா கமிட்டி அமுலாக்கத்திற்கு பிறகு 
லீவு பொறுத்தவரை இனி லீவு எடுக்காத நாட்களில் அதிகபட்சமாக 180 நாட்கள் பணமாக்கிகொள்ளலாம். கடைசியாக பணிஓய்வு பெறுபவர்களுக்கே இது பொருந்தும். ஆனால்,  இடையில் வேலையை ராஜினாமா செய்தாலோ, அல்லது   பதவி உயர்வு பெற்று சென்றாலோ இந்த வாய்ப்பு இல்லை.

2. மேலும், 5  நாட்கள் அவசரகால விடுப்பு தரப்போகிறார்கள். இதற்கு பதிலி ஆள் டூட்டி பார்க்க முடியாது. கம்பைன்ட் டூட்டிதான். ஒரே நேரத்தில் 2 நாட்களுக்கு தான்  இந்த விடுப்பு எடுக்க முடியும். இதை பணமாக்கி கொள்ள முடியாது. அந்த ஆண்டில் இந்த லீவை எடுக்கவில்லைஎன்றால், அது அடுத்த ஆண்டில் தொடர்ந்து சேர்க்கப்படமாட்டது. 

3. ஓரு ஆண்டுக்கு அதிகபட்சமாக இரண்டு குழந்தைகளுக்கு ரூ. 6000/- கல்வி உதவித்தொகை தரப்படும்.

4. ESI போன்ற மருத்துவ வசதிகள்  பரீசிலித்து அளிக்கப்படலாம்.

5. பென்சனை பொறுத்தவரை  8 ஆண்டுகள் பணிசெய்திருந்தால் அதில் 5 ஆண்டுகளை சர்வீஸ் என்று எடுத்துகொண்டு,  மொத்த பணிக்காலத்தையும் இந்த விகிதாச்சாரம் அடிப்படையில்  கணக்கிட்டு பென்சன் வழங்க வாய்ப்புகள் பிரகாசமாக உள்ளது.

6. நிர்வாக காரணங்களுக்கு ஒரு ஊழியரை பணிமாற்றம் செய்யலாம். இது உபகோட்ட அதிகாரியே, கோட்ட அதிகாரி அனுமதியோடு செய்யலாம்.

7.கிளை அஞ்சலகங்கள்   வருவாய் அடிப்படையில் நான்கு வகையாக பிரிக்கப்பட உள்ளன .

 100 சதம் வருவாய் ஈட்டும்  BO -  A பிரிவு பச்சை (GREEN )
75 சதம் முதல் 99.9 வரை               - B  பிரிவு ஆரஞ்சு (ORANGE)
50 சதம் முதல் 47.9 வரை               - C   பிரிவு  இளஞ்சிகப்பு (PINK )
50 சதத்திற்கு கீழ்                             - D     பிரிவு  சிகப்பு   (RED ) 


100 சதத்திற்கு மேல் உள்ள அலுவகத்திற்கு  10%  கூடுதலாக இன்சென்ட்டிவ் வழங்கப்படும் .


B பிரிவில் உள்ளவர்களுக்கு நிர்வாகத்தால் ஊக்குவிக்கப்பட்டு 100 சதத்தை எட்ட உதவுவார்கள்.

 
C பிரிவு ஊழியர்களுக்கு முறையான கடிதம் அனுப்பப்பட்டு கிளை அஞ்சலக அலுவகத்தில் வருவாயை பெருக்கவும்  கூடுதலாக 30 நிமிடம் பணி செய்யவும் பணிக்கப்படுவார்கள்.

 
D பிரிவு அலுவகத்திற்கு RED ALERT நோட்டீஸ் கொடுக்கப்பட்டு கூடுதலாக 60  நிமிடம் பணி செய்யவும் பணிக்கப்படுவார்கள் .தொடர்ந்து வருவாய் ஈட்டுவதில் முன்னேற்றம் ஏற்படாவிட்டால் அந்த அலுவகத்தை இணைக்கவோ /வேறு இடத்தில் மாற்றவோ நிர்வாகம் நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கும் .


8. வருவாயை பெருக்கும் பொருட்டு, IP, ASP அவர்கள் தலைமையில் குழுக்கள் அமைக்கப்பட்டு இலக்குகள் நிர்ணயிக்கப்படும். அதில் எழுத்தர் உதவி தலைவராக செயல்பட்டு, அனைத்து GDS ஊழியர்களையும்  பயன்படுத்தி இலக்குகளை (RPLI, SB, RD, TD, IPPB TARGET, .etc.) அடையவேண்டுமாம்.

Monday, July 30, 2018

LGO Examination ( from Postman/Mts) ... will be held on 09.12.2018




Saturday, July 28, 2018

CLARIFICATION ON ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR APPEARING IN DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION: GRADUATE MTS & GRADUATE CLERK TO AUDITOR GRADE EXAM TO BE HELD IN AUGUST -2018.

Controller General of Defence Accounts
Ulan Batar Road, Palam Delhi Cantt.-110010

AN/ XI/11154/ 2017/ Mts-Clk (Graduate)
Date 03.07.2018
To,
            ALL PCsDA/ CsDAIFAs / PC of A (Fys)

Sub: Clarification on eligibility criteria for appearing in Departmental Examination: Graduate MTS & Graduate Clerk to Auditor grade exam to be held in August -2018.

            References are being received in this HQrs office seeking clarification regarding eligibility criteria for appearing in the Departmental examination for Graduate MTS and Graduate Clerk to the -post of Auditor to be held in the month of Aug-2018. Clarification are also being sought as to whether Stenos/ Driver/Staff other than Graduate MTS &Graduate Clerk are eligible to appear in the said exam.
2.         The matter was examined in HQrs office and it is stated that eligibility criteria for the examination for the post of Auditor will be same as stipulated in amendment of Defence Accounts Department (Auditor) Recruitment Rule, 2009, promulgated vide S.R.O No. 23 dated 03rd May 2016 which clearly states 10% by promotion from amongst Graduate Clerk cum typist and Graduate MTS having a minimum of three years of service on passing Departmental Examination by them for the post of Auditor.
sd/-
(Praveen Kumar Rai)
Sr. Dy. CGDA(AN)

Thursday, July 26, 2018

No.AIPEU-GDS/Exam/TN/2018 Dt.25-07-2018




To

Secretary,
Department of Posts,
DakBhavan,
New Delhi- 110 001.

Sir,

Sub: Filling up of residual vacancies among the GDS based on the regional/circle basis instead of divisional basis in the exam held on 31.07.2016 from GDS to PA post for the year 2013/14  for which  result were announced on 22-02-2017- in case of Tamilnadu circle regarding.

It is brought to our notice through Circle Secretary, AIPEU-GDS  that in Tamilnadu circle, the unfilled  vacancies under the residual vacancies were made thrown open to the GDS as per the rules and the examination was conducted on 31.7.2016 for filling up of 241 vacancies in Postal Assistant cadre. The results of the examination were declared on 22.2.2017. Out of which only 24 GDS officials have been declared selected in the examination based on the divisional cadre. 

If the selection is notified as per the circle as if the present recruitment rules for the Postal Assistant which made the selection on circle basis and allotted to the divisions, many GDS would have been declared successful in the examination.

It is learnt that in other circles, the results have been declared based on the circle as per the revised recruitment procedure adopted by the Staff Selection Commission. But in Tamilnadu it was made as per the old recruitment procedure restricting the declared candidates as per the divisions in which the GDS is working. This is incorrect. On account of non  adopting correct procedures, nearly 38 GDS officials have lost their opportunity to become Postal Assistant.

It is most pertinent that in the question paper for the said examination, there was an error in question No-67, part-C in Paper-1, by asking equal meaning for the word “BIZARRE” , but there is no such word in English. As per rules for such incorrect question 1 mark has to be added in the valuation done. But that was done even after pointing out this lacuna by the candidates through their representations. If one mark is added for wrong question there is a possibility of 10 candidates getting PA Post by that Exam.
(……………….2)
(2)
It is also noteworthy to mention that all passed candidates in paper-1, have not been admitted for appearing in paper-2. But only 55 candidates of Tamilnadu circle have been admitted by following incorrect procedure by limiting the passed candidates for appearing in paper-2. This incorrect procedure has forfeited the fair chances of 28 GDS officials who could not appear for computer test (paper - 2) and thus their opportunity become PAs has been barred. Therefore remedy is to permit them to write paper-2, at least now to get chance for becoming as PAs.

It is most appropriate to mention that for the exam 2010-2011 the selection was made on circle level basis. If the same procedure would have been adopted for the vacancies of the 2013-2014 totally 38 GDS could get PA post certainly as per the declaration of results made for Tamilnadu circle. By instructing CPMG-TN Circle to reconsider the result announced already on 22-02-17 by adopting correct procedures as briefed above.

If all the above irregularities and shortcomings are set aside there is more chance of filling up the posts of Postal Assistants. It is apt to note that the vacancies are still remaining unfilled and if the irregularities are corrected there will not be any hurdle to fill up all the vacancies with the GDS who in fact qualified in the examination based on the circle level. The aggrieved GDS in Tamilnadu circle are agitating and their fair chances have been freezed due to the wrong application of the rules by the Circle Administration.

It is therefore requested to kindly intervene and do appropriate action to review the result declared on 22.2.2017 and set aside the irregularities and find a solution to the representations made by the affected and aggrieved GDS officials since then and render justice.

Soliciting immediate response,
      Yours Sincerely,

P.Pandurangarao,
General Secretary

Wage structure of GDS :: LS Q & A (25-07-2018)


பாராளுமன்றத்தில் அமைச்சர் தவறாக தெரிவித்து உள்ளார்.ஏற்கனவே Bpm 3660-70-5760 ஸ்கேல் 4மணிநேர வொர்க்லோட் இருக்கு. அதே போல MD/MC/SV 3635-65-5585,   4220-75-6470.    5_மணிநேர வொர்க்லோட் இருக்கு. இவர்களுக்கு ஏன் 14,500என்று சம்பளம் நிர்ணயிக்க வில்லை? பாரபட்சம் இல்லையா?

Friday, July 20, 2018

👇 Gds சர்வீஸ்  கணக்கிட்டு பென்சன் தருவது குறித்த பல தீர்ப்புகள்   கலங்கரை விளக்கு  மாதஇதழில் வந்தது. அது உங்கள் பார்வைக்காக.....





Wednesday, July 18, 2018

தோழர்களே, ஒவ்வொரு இலாகாவிலும 2004க்கு முன்பு் கேசுவல் லேபராக பணிபுரிந்தவர்களை 2004 க்கு அப்புறம் பணிநிரந்தம் செய்திருந்தாலும் அவர்களுக்கும் பழைய பென்சனே வழங்கலாம். அவர்களிடம் NPS க்காக பணம் பிடித்திருந்தால் அதனை GPFல் சேர்க்க வேண்டும். அரசு சார்பில் வழங்கிய பங்களிப்பு தொகை மட்டும் அதில் சேர்க்கப்படாது.ஆனால்அவர்களது முந்தைய சர்வீஸ் கணக்கில் கொண்டு பழைய பென்சன் திட்டத்தில் இவர்களை சேர்க்க வேண்டும். மற்றபடி gds.க்கு இது உண்டு என்று சொல்லவில்லை.

ஆனால் இது நமது அஞ்சல்துறையில் அமல்படுத்தும் போது, GDSலிருந்து MTS, POSTMAN, PAஆக பதவியியர்வு பெற்றவர்களுக்கு வருங்காலத்தில் 5/8 சர்வீஸ் கணக்கிட்டு பழைய பென்சன் கிடைக்கும் என்பது நிச்சயம்.

Procedure for extending the benefits of Old GPF / Pension Scheme to those casual workers covered under the Scheme of 1993 and regularized on or after 01.01.2004.



Share this




Tuesday, July 17, 2018

GDS COURT CASE LATEST UPDATES ON 16.07.2018


GDS COURT CASE ON “CIVIL SERVANT STATUS” FILED BY NFPE & AIPEU-GDS POSTED FOR NEXT HEARING ON 12-09-2018.

ORDER OF THE CAT PRINCIPAL BENCH & THE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY DEPARTMENT IS PUBLISHED HERE UNDER.


CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH,  NEW DELHI
ORDER SHEET
COURT NO. : 2
09/05/2018
T.A./9/2015
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES & ANOTHER
-V/S-
D/O POST
ITEM NO:54
FOR APPLICANTS(S)    Adv. :
Shri M.K. Tripathi and Shri Uday Gupta
FOR RESPONDENTS(S) Adv.:
Dr. Ch. Shamsuddin Khan
Shri Piyush Gaur

Notes of The Registry
Order of The Tribunal
       Due to paucity of time, the matter could not be taken up for hearing.
       List on 12.09.2018.
( NITA CHOWDHURY)
MEMBER (A)       
( V. AJAY KUMAR)
MEMBER (J)      
CLICK HERE for the copy of the application filed by the Department on 04.07.2018

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Answer keys - TN Circle GDS to postman exam held on 8-7-18

தோழர்களே, நடந்து முடிந்த GDS to POSTMAN exam விடைகள் வட்டமிட்டு காட்டியுள்ளோம்.இது இலாகாவின் அதிகாரப்பூர்வ மான விடைகள் அல்ல. தோழர்கள் அறிந்து கொள்ள வெளியிடப்பட்டதாகும்.












Friday, July 13, 2018

TRANSPORT ALLOWANCE AT DOUBLE THE NORMAL RATES TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES EMPLOYED IN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

 


Thursday, July 12, 2018

P. Raghupathy Vs. The Chairman, Postal Services Board, Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/1188079
GdsCourtChennai High Court
Decided OnSep-28-2016
Case NumberW.P.No. 27082 of 2016
JudgeS. Manikumar &Amp; N. Authinathan
AppellantP. Raghupathy
RespondentThe Chairman, Postal Services Board, Union of India and Others
Excerpt:
constitution of india - article 21, article 37, article 41, article 226 - administrative of tribunals act, 1985 - section 20, section 21 - vacant post - petitioner challenge order passed by tribunal, tribunal had declined to quash orders of chief postmaster general, second respondent, made in order of superintendent of post offices, fourth respondent, declined to issue any direction to first respondents to fifth respondent, to appoint petitioner on compassionate grounds, in a vacant post hence this appeal court held - order, had challenged in year - in light of section 21 of act, 1985, original application was time barred - instructions, issued by assistant director general (gds) regarding status of married son as a dependant family member, cannot be made applicable to case of.....(prayer: writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india, praying for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the 6th respondent in o.a.no.34 of 2013, dated 23.07.2014, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as gds on compassionate grounds.) s. manikumar, j. 1. challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the central administrative tribunal, madras bench, chennai, in o.a.no.34 of 2013, dated 23.07.2014, by which, the tribunal has declined to quash the orders of the chief postmaster general, tamil nadu circle, chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, made in no.rep/36/60/03, dated 07.04.2004 and no.rep/36-gds/moc/2012, dated 15.11.2012 and the order of the superintendent of post offices,.....
Judgment:
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the 6th respondent in O.A.No.34 of 2013, dated 23.07.2014, quash the same and consequently, to direct the respondents 1 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as GDS on compassionate grounds.)
S. Manikumar, J.
1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, in O.A.No.34 of 2013, dated 23.07.2014, by which, the Tribunal has declined to quash the orders of the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, the 2nd respondent herein, made in No.REP/36/60/03, dated 07.04.2004 and No.REP/36-GDS/MOC/2012, dated 15.11.2012 and the order of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th respondent herein, made in No.BII/RELXN/PR, dated 14.03.2012 and consequently, declined to issue any direction to respondents 1 to 5, to appoint the petitioner as Gramin Dek Sevak, on compassionate grounds, in a vacant post.
2. Facts leading to the writ petition are that petitioner's father, S.Palanichamy, who was originally recruited as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GD5 MD) at Jenankottai BO a/w Vedasandur SO, by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, THE 4th respondent herein, vide order, dated 01.12.1969, died in harness on 02.06.2001. The petitioner made a representation to the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, for employment assistance on compassionate appointment, stating that his family was in penury. Vide letter, dated 31.10.2003/03.11.2003, The Postmaster General, Southern Region (TN), Madurai, 3rd Respondent herein, informed the petitioner that his case had been forwarded to the Chairman, Postal Services Board, Union of India, New Delhi, 1st Respondent herein. However, vide order, dated 07.04.2004, the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter the petitioner made several representations for re-consideration of his case.
3. The representation, dated 06.04.2009, addressed to the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, for appointment in anyone of the GDS posts, on compassionate grounds. Vide order, dated 14.03.2012, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th respondent herein, informed the petitioner that his claim had already been rejected by the 2nd respondent, vide order, dated 07.04.2004.
4. Thereafter, the petitioner once again made a representation, dated 26.10.2012, to the Chairman, Postal Services Board, Union of India, New Delhi, 1st Respondent herein, seeking reconsideration of his claim, for appointment, as GDS, in view of the indigent circumstances of the family. The said representation was rejected on 15.11.2012, stating that the case of the petitioner could not be considered, in view of the conduct of petitioner's father, not being satisfactory. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.34 of 2013, for the reliefs, as follows:
"(i) Call for the records of (i) the 2nd respondent pertaining to his order made in No.REP/36/60/03, dated 07.04.2004 and the order in No.REP/36-GDS/MOC/2012, dated 15.11.2012, and (ii) the order of the 4th respondent in No.BII/RELXN/PR, dated 14.03.2012 and set aside the same; consequently to
(ii) direct the Respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds as GDS against a clear vacant post."
5. inter alia, the petitioner has contended that in the matter of compassionate appointment, misconduct alleged against the deceased employee, cannot be a ground to deny appointment. After the demise of his father, there is no source of income and he had incurred heavy expenses for arranging marriage to his sister. That apart, he has also submitted that in June' 2012, the 2nd respondent has appointed nearly 94 candidates on compassionate grounds and in all these appointees, their fathers died in harness, during the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 respectively.
6. The relief sought for in O.A.No.34 of 2013, has been opposed by the respondents, stating that the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC), which met on 26.02.2004 and 27.02.2004, considered the application, dated 08.06.2001, submitted by the petitioner for appointment as GDS, but the Committee did not recommend his case, for the reasons that,
(i) no dependency was involved,
(ii) wife of the deceased GDS was no more,
(iii) both children had attained majority and were married, and
(iv) family did not appear to be in indigent circumstances.
The Chief Postmaster General, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, vide letter dated 07.04.2012, has informed the same, to the petitioner.
7. Before the Tribunal, the respondents have further submitted that that petitioner's further representation, dated 06.04.2009 addressed to the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, for reconsideration of his case, was also disposed of, vide letter, dated 13.04.2009, stating that his case had already been considered and rejected by the previous Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) and therefore, the subsequent representation cannot be reconsidered.
8. For the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.10.2012, addressed to the Chairman, Postal Services Board, New Delhi, a reply has been given by the Circle Office, Chennai, informing him, that the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) had already considered his case and rejected it, on the grounds, as informed in the letter, dated 07.04.2004.
9. The respondents have further contended that compassionate appointment is a gesture of welfare and goodwill by the Government, keeping in view the good work done by the former EDA, but the work and conduct of his father was not satisfactory and as such, his case could not be reconsidered.
10. The respondents have further submitted that the Original Application is barred by limitation, as the decision of the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC), rejecting the claim of the petitioner, was sent, as early as on 07.04.2004 and again, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th Respondent herein, has forwarded the copy of the letter dated 07.04.2004, along with his letter dated 28.04.2009. The respondents have further submitted that as per the records of the 4th Respondent herein, petitioner's father was unuathorisedly absent on duty, on 06.06.1980 and from 24.01.1983 to 28.01.1983. He was placed under put off duty from 18.08.1984 to 03.09.1984, for not attending the legitimate duty assigned to him and was reinstated on 04.09.19984, with severe warning for his unsatisfactory work. He was arrested on 14.05.1998, by the District Crime Branch, Dindigul, under Cr.No.4/98 and consequently, placed under put-off duty from 14.05.1998 to 26.06.1998. There was a public complaint against the deceased GDS, regarding non delivery of tapals.
11. It is also their contention that as per Postal Directorate's letter No.17-9/2001-ED and RFG, dated 15.02.2001, compassionate appointment is not permissible in the cadre of GDS, who was the subject matter of departmental proceedings for some wrong doings, and that extension of facility of compassionate appointment, as a welfare measure to the dependent of the GDS dying in harness, could be justified, only if the performance of the GDS was found to be satisfactory.
12. The respondents have further submitted that the DOPT in OM No.14014/6/94-Estt. (D), dated 09.10.1998, has laid down that for compassionate appointment, the family should be in indigent circumstances and deserve immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. The Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) has found that there was no dependency involved and the case did not appear to be one of indigent circumstances. The respondents have relied on a decision of the Tribunal in R. Kathiravan Vs. Union of India and Ors.,held on 12.06.2013, wherein, it has been held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and it could not be treated as a heritable public office. Reliance has also been placed on a decision in Brijesh Kumar D Patel Vs. UOI and ors. [OA No.179/2009],wherein, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal has taken a view that the department should not be compelled to relax the relevant circulars for compassionate appointment.
13. After hearing both sides, taking note of the Postal Directorate's letter No.17-9/2001-EDandRFG, dated 15.02.2001 and after considering the decisions in LIC v. Mrs.Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar and Anr., reported in 1994-II-LLJ 173 = JT 1994 (2) SC 183, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., v. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reported in 2006 (12) SCALE 1, State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar reported in 2010 (11) SCC 661 and Union of India v. B.Kishore reported in 2011 (13) SCC 131, the Tribunal has declined to quash the orders impugned. The Tribunal also held that the Original Application is barred by limitation, as the decision of the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC), rejecting the claim of the petitioner, was sent to him, as early as on 07.04.2004 and again the 4th Respondent, vide his letter dated 28.04.2009, has forwarded the copy of the letter, dated 07.04.2004. The said order is challenged in the year 2013.
14. Mr.P.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated the grounds made before the Tribunal. He further submitted that there was no departmental enquiry or Court proceedings, pending against the petitioner's father, while he was in service. It is also his contention that the department has taken long time to reconsider the case of the petitioner. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th respondent herein, has not considered the penury of the petitioner and simply referred the order to the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, dated 07.04.2004 and rejected the claim of the petitioner.
15. Referring to the instructions issued by the Assistant Director General (GDS), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that married son can seek for employment on compassionate grounds. It is also his contention that as per the new scheme of compassionate appointment, there is no time limit for submission of application and review of cases, is based on point based system of assessing indigence. He prayed to remit the matter to the authorities, for reconsideration, in the light of subsequent instructions. For the abovesaid reasons, he prayed to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.
16. Mr.V.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the respondents made submissions, to sustain the order of the Tribunal.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
17. When the petitioner made a request for employment assistance on 09.06.2001, his case has been considered and vide letter No.REP/36-60/03, dated 07.04.2004, the Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai, 2nd respondent herein, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. Letter, dated 07.04.2004, is extracted hereunder:
"After careful consideration, the Circle Relaxation Committee which met on 26.02.2004 and 27.02.2004, has NOT recommended your case for appointment, under compassionate grounds, for the reasons mentioned below:
(1) no dependency was involved,
(2) wife is no more,
(iii) both children have attained majority and married,
(iv) Does not appear to be in indigent circumstances.
It is therefore regretted to inform you that your application for appointment under compassionate ground as GDS in the Department is rejected."
18. Subsequently, when the petitioner made another representation, dated 06.04.2009, the same has been rejected, by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th respondent herein, vide letter No.BII/RELXN/PR, at Dindigul 642001, dated 28.04.2009, which is extracted hereunder:
"No.BII/RELXN/PR, at Dindigul 642001, dated 28.04.2009.
Sub: Compassionate appointment - C/o.Sri.P.Raghupathy,
S/o.Late S.Palanichamy, Jenankottai BO, Vedasandur
SO - Reg.
Ref: Your application, dated 06.04.2009.
Please refer to your letter cited above.
Please forward the copy of Regional Office letter, dated 07.04.2004, in which your request for Compassionate appointment was rejected."
19. Thereafter, the petitioner has made another representation, dated 28.12.2011 and once again, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th respondent herein, vide letter No.BII/RELXN/PR, Dindigul 642001, dated 14.03.2012, has rejected the request of the petitioner, on the grounds that the case of the petitioner has already been considered and rejected on 07.04.2004. Letter, dated 14.03.2012, is extracted hereunder:
"No.BII/RELXN/PR, at Dindigul 642001, dated 14.03.2012.
Sub: Compassionate appointment - C/o.Sri.P.Raghupathy,
S/o.Late S.Palanichamy, Jenankottai BO, Vedasandur
SO - Reg.
Ref: Your application, dated 06.04.2009.
Please refer to your letter cited above.
Please forward the copy of Regional Office letter, dated 07.04.2004, in which your request for Compassionate appointment was rejected."
20. From the material on record, it could be seen that though the request of the writ petitioner for employment assistance on compassionate grounds, has been rejected, as early as on 07.04.2004, the same has not been challenged before the forum. The petitioner has resurrected his request onceagain, after five years, in 2009, vide application, dated 06.04.2009, which also came to be rejected, vide order of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th respondent herein, dated 28.04.2009 and this communication was also not challenged.
21. After two years, onceagain, the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 28.12.2011 to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th respondent herein, which has been rejected on 14.03.2012 and the said order has not been challenged. After eight years of the first rejection order, dated 07.04.2004, the petitioner has sent another representation, dated 26.10.2012, to the Chairman, Postal Services Board, Union of India, New Delhi, 1st Respondent herein, requesting for reconsideration of his case for compassionate appointment as TDS. This representation has been rejected on 15.11.2012, citing that the compassionate appointment is a gesture of welfare and goodwill by the Government, keeping in view the good work done by the former EDA, but the work and conduct of his father was not satisfactory and therefore, the Chairman, Postal Services Board, Union of India, New Delhi, 1st Respondent herein, has formed an opinion that petitioner's case could not be reconsidered.
22. Thus, from the materials on record, it could be seen that without challenging the orders of the competent authorities, rejecting the request for compassionate appointment, the petitioner has been trying to resurrect his case for employment assistance on compassionate appointment, by sending representations, one after another, from 2001 till 2012.
23. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chairman, Postal Services Board, Union of India, New Delhi, 1st Respondent herein, has assigned different reasons, attributing misconduct, against the father of the writ petitioner, for rejecting the request of the writ petitioner, for employment assistance on compassionate appointment, citing the Postal Directorate's letter No.17-9/2001-ED and RFG, dated 15.02.2001, which states that compassionate appointment is not permissible in the cadre of GDS, who was the subject matter of departmental proceedings for some wrong doings and that extension of facility of compassionate appointment, as a welfare measure to the dependent of the GDS dying in harness, can be justified only if the performance of the GDS was found to be satisfactory and further contended that for the said reasons, request for compassionate appointment should not be denied, this Court is not inclined to reverse the order impugned.
24. When O.A.No.34 of 2013, was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, the petitioner was aged 39 years. Perusal of the counter affidavit, filed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dindigul Division, Dindigul, 4th respondent herein, shows that the writ petitioner was having a house and plot, at Jenankottai Village and that he was a partner in cloth store. Having regard to the above, the respondents have further stated that the compassionate appointment is a welfare measure to mitigate financial destitution and that the same cannot be demanded as a matter of right.
25. Reliance made on the subsequent scheme for review of three years time limit for making compassionate appointment, vide proceedings in F.No.14014/3/2011-Estt.(D), dated 26.07.2012, will not erase the earlier orders of rejection, dated 07.04.2004, 28.04.2009 and 14.03.2012, passed by the competent authorities and give rise to a new cause of action, to file another representation on 26.10.2012, resurrecting the matter onceagain. Once an order has been passed on the request of the writ petitioner, rejecting his case for employment assistance on compassionate grounds and not challenged before the competent forum, within time and when the reasons stated in the orders, are allowed to be sustained, the same attains finality.
26. It is one thing to state that a new scheme of compassionate appointment has taken away the time limit for submitting an application for employment assistance on compassionate grounds. But, as observed in the earlier paragraphs, that will not have the effect of erasing the earlier orders, not challenged. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prescribes a period of limitation and the said Section reads that,
"(1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,
(a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made;
(b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where
(a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and
(b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of sub-section (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period."
27. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, challenging the order, dated 07.04.2004 is barred by limitation. Decisions relied on by the Tribunal, are reproduced hereunder:
"8. Compassionate appointment is not another source of recruitment and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right as held by the Courts in a number of cases. The consistent view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that compassionate appointment is not another source of recruitment and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Its primary purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to a family which has lost its bread winner.
9. In Union of India and Anr. vs. B.Kishore in C.A.No.1046 of 2006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in the case of State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar and said on 6 April, 2011, as follows:
"InState Bank of India v. Raj Kumar,(2010) II SCC661, elucidating the nature of the scheme of compassionate appointments this Court observed:
It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a sources of of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit. by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme..........
10. In the case of LIC V. Mrs, Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar and Anr., 1994-II-LLJ-173 = JT 1994 (2) SC 183, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that High Courts and Central Administrative Tribunals cannot give direction for appointment of a person on compassionate ground impelled by sympathetic Considerations but can merely direct consideration of the claim for such appointment.
11. In the case Of Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., v. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. in CA No, 4996 of 2006 on 16 November, 2006, [2006 (12) SCALE 1], the Hon'ble Supreme Court said as follows:
".... we would like to state that although this Court would be very happy ifeverybody in the country is given a suitable job, the fact remains that in the present state of Our Country's economy the number of jobs are limited. Hence, everybodycannot be given a job, despite our earnest desire.
It may be mentioned that jobs cannot be created by judicial orders, nor even by legislative or executive decisions. Jobs are created when the economy is rapidly expanding, which means when there is rapid industrialization. At present, the state of affairs in Our country is that although the economy has progressed a little in some directions, but the truth is that this has only benefited a handful of persons while the plight of the masses hasWorsened. Unemployment in our country is increasing, and has become massive and chronic. To givean example, for each post of a peon which is advertised in some establishment, there are over a thousand applicants, many of whom have MA, M.SC., M.Com or MBA degrees. Recently, about 140 posts of Primary School Teachers were advertised in a District in Western Madhya Pradesh, and there were about 13000 applicants i.e. almost 100 applicants for each post. Large scale suicides by farmers in several parts of the country also shows the level of unemployment. These are the social and economic realities of the country which cannot be ignored.
One may be very large hearted but then economic realities have also to be seen. Giving appointments means adding extra financial burden to the national exchequer. Money for paying salaries to such appointees does not fall from the sky, and it can only be realized by imposing additional taxes on the public or taking fresh loans. both of which will only lead to additional burden on the people.
No doubt, Article 41 provides for the right to work, but this has been deliberately kept by the founding fathers of our Constitution in the Directive Principles and hence made unenforceable in view of Article 37, because the founding fathers in their wisdom realized that while it was their wish that everyone should be given employment, but the ground realities of our country cannot be overlooked. In our opinion, Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be stretched so far as to mean that everyone must be given a job. The number of available jobs are limited, and hence Courts must take a realistic view of the matter and must exercise self-restraint."
28. Order, dated 07.04.2004, has been challenged in the year 2013. In the light of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Original Application is time barred. Instructions, dated 14.01.2015, issued by the Assistant Director General (GDS) regarding the status of married son as a dependant family member, cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner, when his application was considered, as per the guidelines in vogue, at that time, when the petitioner has not challenged the earlier orders, dated 07.04.2004, 28.04.2009, 14.03.2012 and 15.11.2012, he cannot take advantage of subsequent instructions, in this writ petition.
29. Going through the material on record, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order in O.A.No.34 of 2013, dated 23.07.2014 of the Tribunal, warranting interference. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

#NEET_தேர்வு
 தவறான தமிழ் மொழி பெயர்ப்பு 49 கேள்விகளுக்கு 196 மதிப்பெண்கள் வழங்க #TK_ரங்கராஜன் CPIM MP தொடுத்த பொதுநல  வழக்கில் சென்னை உயர்நீதிமன்றம் மதுரை கிளை உத்தரவு.

புதிய தரவரிசை பட்டியல் இரண்டு வார காலத்தில் வெளியிட CBSE-க்கு அறிவுறுத்தல்..


அதுவரை நடந்து கொண்டிருக்கும் மருத்துவ கவுன்சிலிங்கை நிறுத்தி வைத்து, புதிய தரவரிசை பட்டியல் CBSE தீர்ப்பின் அடிப்படையில் வெளியிட்டு பிறகு அதன் அடிப்படையில் புதிய கலந்தாய்வு நடை பெறும்...

NEET

Madras HC orders CBSE to give 196 marks to Tamil medium students, for errors in 49 questions

The Madurai bench of the Madras HC had earlier pulled up CBSE and TN govt, asking them if they wanted to judge Tamil medium students on their English proficiency.

The Madurai bench of Madras High Court has ordered the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) to award 196 grace marks for the students who had attempted National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) 2018 in Tamil – since 49 questions in the Tamil question paper had been mistranslated. The court has also ordered CBSE to release a revised rank list based on this order within two weeks.

 *This order was issued based on a petition filed* *by TK Rangarajan, a CPI (M) Rajya Sabha MP.* 

The MP had said that nearly one-third of the question paper was translated wrongly in Tamil and had sought the court to direct the admissions to be held either based solely on the Class XII marks of the students or award 196 grace marks to students who had attempted the exam in Tamil.

After the judgement came in, the MP told TNM that students who are aggrieved by NEET’s mistranslation had been vindicated. “The court has asked for 4 grace marks to be given per mistranslated question which is 196 marks for 49 questions. As I am an MP, members of the Students Federation of India and many others had approached me and so I decided to go to court,” Rangarajan said.

The MP added that it is now up to the TN government and CBSE to decide whether the admission process will be suspended and the counselling will be held once again.

A bench of Justices CT Selvam and AM Basheer Ahamed had on July 6 pulled up the CBSE for releasing the results despite knowing about the PIL, observing "Why did they do so?"

Hitting out at CBSE, the bench stated that the Board was acting autocratic when it came to errors in the Tamil version of NEET. 

In response to the CBSE’s submission, the bench observed, "How do you decide the right answers for the questions based on majority view? CBSE is accepting even wrong answers under the pretext of majority decision. How is that in Bihar state so many students got through the examination?"

NEET was conducted across India on May 6. Around 24000 students took the exam in Tamil.

The rank list for medical counselling in Tamil Nadu was released by the TN department of health and family welfare on June 28. The first round of counselling for admissions to TN medical colleges began on July 1 an ended on July 7.

The cut-off under NEET for unreserved category this year stood at 119 and for OBC, SC and ST stood at 96 out of the total 720 marks. 

Monday, July 9, 2018

Gds arrears order released by TN circle....

நமது NFPE P3  மாநிலச் சங்கத்தில் காலையில் செய்தி அளித்தபடி தற்போது இன்று மாலையில் CPMG அலுவலகத்தால் GDS ஊதியக்குழு உத்திரவு வெளியிடப்பட்டுள்ளதை பார்க்கவும்.

Friday, July 6, 2018

GDS service counted for  pension benefit- Reg....

Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.Raveendran vs The Senior Superintendent Of Post ... on 9 December, 2014
  
              CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                         ERNAKULAM BENCH

                     Original Application No.546/2012

               Tuesday, this the 09th day of December 2014

C O R A M :

HON'BLE Mr.U.SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

K.Raveendran,
Group D, Mail Motor Service,
Fort, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 023.
Residing at Kappil Panyil Veedu,
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, RNRA - 107,
Medical College P.O., Thiruvananthapuram - 695 011.          ...Applicant

(By Advocate Mr.Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil)

                                 V e r s u s

1.    The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
      Thiruvananthapuram North Division,
      Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.

2.    The Chief Postmaster General,
      Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.

3.    Union of India
      represented by its Secretary & Director General,
      Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
      New Delhi - 110 001.                                ...Respondents

(By Advocate Mr.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil)

      This application having been heard on 5th November 2014 the
Tribunal on 09th December 2014 delivered the following :-

                                O R D E R
HON'BLE Mr.U.SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Applicant is a pensioner retired on 30.9.2008 on attaining superannuation at the age of 60 years as a Group D official under the respondent No.1. He was taken into Group D as per Annexure A-2 order dated 17.10.2000. Annexure A-2 indicates that applicant while working as an ED Agent(for short, EDA) was selected for appointment against the Group D vacancies which arose in 1998 in Thiruvananthapuram North Division and in Postal Stores Depot, Thiruvananthapuram. Applicant states that when he retired on 30.9.2008 he fell short of one year and nine months for the purpose of reckoning the ten years' qualifying service required for minimum pension. He sent Annexure A-3 representation to respondent No.2 requesting for grant of minimum pension. As there was no response, he sent Annexure A-4 representation to respondent No.3. According to him, if he had continued in the GDS post, he could retire after attaining the age of 65 years. But on taking up the Group D post in the Postal Department, he had to retire at the age of 60 years. He points out that full time/part time casual labourers are entitled to work beyond the age of 60 years and as per the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of Government of India, 1993 with effect from 1.9.1993 50% of the service rendered by casual labourers under the temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularisation to Group D. Applicant states that respondents ought to have adopted a similar practice in Postal Department also to reckon the service rendered by ED Agents (now GDS) appointed as regular Group D for reckoning their qualifying service for pension. In support of his claim applicant points out a decision dated 18.4.2002 of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Madras in O.A.No.1264/2001, marked as Annexure A-5. Applicant states that the order therein was upheld by the Madras High Court and thereafter the S.L.P filed against the judgment of the Madras High Court in that case was dismissed by the Apex Court. Applicant seeks parity with the benefits granted vide Annexure A-5 order. He prays for the following reliefs :
1. Declare that the applicant is legally entitled to have his service rendered as Extra Departmental Agent reckoned for the purpose of determining minimum qualifying service for pension to make up the deficiency of a few days to complete 10 years in the post of Group D and is entitled to receive pension on his retirement from the cadre of Group D.
2. Direct the respondents to take into account the service rendered by the applicant as a Group D on adhoc/extra cost basis for the purpose of qualifying years of service for pension.
3. Direct the respondents to consider treating the applicant as notionally appointed in the vacancy of the year 1998 so as to enable the applicant to get minimum qualifying years of service for pension.
4. Directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders sanctioning pension to the applicant who retired from Group D cadre, reckoning the part of his service rendered as extra Departmental Agent to make up the deficiency of service for earning pension.
5. Directing the respondents to disburse arrears of pension which became due on retirement of the applicant from the post of Postman and continue to pay pension regularly.
6. Any other further relief or order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to meet the ends of justice.
7. Award the cost of these proceedings.
2. Respondents in their reply contend that while accepting the Group D post on 17.10.2000, applicant had accepted the conditions of appointment and is now estopped from challenging his date of appointment at this distant point of time. According to the respondents, an employee does not have any indefeasible right to promotion and that right is only for consideration for promotion. In support of this contention respondents relied on Annexure R-1 to R-3 orders of this Bench. According to respondents, service of applicant as EDA cannot be reckoned since the nature of engagement as GDS differs from that of the permanent posting as Group D in the Postal Department, in view of the nature of posting of EDAs as noted by the Apex Court in Union of India & others v. Kameshwar Prasad 1988 SCC (L&S)
447. It was pointed out by the respondents that Annexure A-5 order of the Madras Bench of this Tribunal, though upheld by the Madras High Court, Annexure R-4 judgment of the Madras High Court in that case had specifically put a rider that the judgment is not to be treated as precedent in other cases. Respondents further state that the Apex Court's order, copy of which is produced as Annexure A-6, has specifically pointed out that the question of law is left open to be decided by the appropriate Court in appropriate case. Therefore, respondents contend that Annexure A-5 order cannot be relied on in this case.
3. It is also contended by the respondents that in view of the clear position in CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the applicant has no legal right to claim the reliefs sought. The relevant provisions in the CCS (Pension) Rules have not been set aside or quashed by any judicial fora. Respondents state that a Full Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.1033/2013 (Chandigarh Bench) had held that the services rendered as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster, even if followed by appointment as Group D, is not to be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. According to respondents, the request of applicant to revise the date of appointment as Group D with effect from the date of arising of the vacancy cannot be accepted. Here the applicant has no case that any of his juniors have been promoted with effect from the date prior to his promotion. Respondents contend that there is a shortfall of two years and 17 days for the applicant to be considered for minimum pension.
4. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating his contentions in the O.A. Applicant has subsequently produced Annexure A-11 to Annexure A-14- which are copies of some of the decisions of this Bench as well as some of the judgments of the High Court of Kerala on the topic.
5. Heard Shri.Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri.Varghese representing Shri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, learned senior panel counsel for respondents. The important issue to be considered in this O.A is whether the deficit period of the applicant's qualifying service for the purpose of availing of minimum pension can be made good by reckoning his service as an EDA (now known as GDS).
6. It is admitted by respondents that applicant commenced his service as Extra Departmental Mail Packer with effect from 27.1.1981. It is also the admitted case that he was selected to the post of Group D in the Postal Department as per Annexure A-2 as a selection made from the ED Agents against the vacancies arose in 1998. Applicant contends that Annexure A-2 order dated 17.10.2000 happened to be delayed on account of the latches of the respondents' department and that had he been appointed in 1998 itself, ie., when the Group D vacancy arose, he would have been qualified for minimum pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This contention is, however, refuted by the respondents stating that the applicant cannot take such a plea because while accepting the Annexure A-2 appointment he had foregone the service as ED Agent and it cannot be agitated at a distant point of time in 2012. However, it has to be noted that applicant is not claiming any seniority or arrears of salary by making a prayer in this O.A for reckoning his date of appointment from the date of arising of the vacancy and that he is seeking such notional dating back of his appointment merely for the purpose of availing of pensionary benefits.
7. This Tribunal takes note that even while working as ED Agent the applicant was working under the Postal Department, though the nature of work of ED Agent (now GDS)is, in theory, considered to be a leisure time engagement for people who are otherwise reasonably affluent and are assisting the Department by way of a gainful vocation and social service in catering to the postal needs of the rural communities. However, in reality, one can judicially take notice that though initially the work of EDAs and GDSs have been honorary in nature, the gratuitous concept has gradually withered and it became engulfed by the employment needs of teaming millions who throng at the doors of Government institutions for securing public employment that ensures security of tenure and other service benefits sans pensionary benefits. Respondents point out that engagement as EDA/GDS does not carry any pensionary benefits but only severance benefits. By adopting a dual mode of employment of persons for discharging the functions of Postal Department, the Government may be aiming at economy. But, as observed earlier, in the modern context the honorary nature of EDA/GDS has undergone a sea change. Faced with acute unemployment, a large number of educated youth are eagerly waiting for being enrolled as GDS which carry less service benefits than their counterparts in the regular posts of the Postal department. May be the continuance of such a dual system of employment is within the province of the policy decisions of the Government. Yet the Tribunal and Courts cannot shut their eyes to the disparity and injustice meted out to the EDAs/GDS in the matter of pension and security of tenure.
8. Applicant has relied on Annexure A-5 decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Madras which had made some strong observations regarding the need for reckoning the service of Group D employees, who are promoted from the post of EDAs. Though the superior Courts have not interfered with that decision, it was destined to remain as a judicial verdict in respect of the parties inter se, not being capable of percolating down to similarly situated employees.
9. Applicant has also referred to the situation of the casual employees in the Postal Department who has attained temporary status being able to reckon 50% of their service as temporary status casual worker as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. One may be at a loss to find reason why a similar policy is not adopted by the Postal Department in the case of EDA/GDS. It may be argued that EDA/GDS are paid only the time related emoluments depending on the time they spent on duty. Nevertheless, the continued and unbroken service extracted of them for long years has to be treated on par with the regular employees of the department because in the present day context, no EDA/GDS will be doing "honorary" work as envisaged in the early days of EDA. Denial of equal treatment of such persons with the casual employees who have been given temporary status appears to be tainted with double standards and violative of the equality principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though this is within the sphere of the policy decisions of the executive, decision makers are Constitutionally bound to make just and equitable decisions, as envisaged in Article 38 of the Constitution of India. It reads :
"38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people - The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.
The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations."
10. The Constitutional aspirations of bringing in a social order in which justice - social, economic and political - is expected of by all instrumentalities and institutions of the national life. Postal Department is not an exception to this Constitutional provision. The Postal department cannot turn a Nelson's eye to the expectations of the Constitution envisaged in Article 38 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, though not taking Annexure A-5 order as a precedent, this Tribunal, through the windows of  Article 38 of the Constitution of India, is able to perceive the crass injustice meted out in this case. The discerning eyes in the department can see that the tools of justice are readily available inArticle 38 to put to use and to bring in a better social order for its employees who are differentiated by artificial stratification viz. Departmental and GDS.
11. In view of the rider put in by the Madras High Court in Annexure R- 4 judgment and in the light of the caveat contained in the Annexure A-6 order of the Apex Court, this Tribunal is not relying on Annexure A-5 decision of the Co-ordinate Bench at Madras.
12. It is contended by the applicant that even while he was working as EDA he was given ad hoc postings as Group D and hence he prays for treating such periods as qualifying service for pension. However, respondents contend that the periods during which he has worked as ad hoc Group D were intermittent and not continuous. Therefore, according to the respondents, applicant cannot qualify himself for the benefits of first proviso to Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which requires that the officiating or temporary service put in by a Government servant has to be followed by a substantive appointment without interruption. Applicant has not produced any record to show that his service put in as ad hoc Group D employee immediately prior to Annexure A-2 appointment was without any interruption.
13. Applicant relied on a good number of orders of this Tribunal wherein the past service as GDS and the delay occurred in selection and appointment was taken into consideration for the purpose of being treated as qualifying service for pension. Respondents also produced some decisions which dis- entitle the GDS employees for claiming their previous service when they were appointed as GDS. Annexure R-1, Annexure R-2 and Annexure R-3 are such decisions in which the applicants therein are claiming antedating their date of appointment. However, the intention of the applicant in his request for notional antedating of his date of appointment is simply for the purpose of getting pensionary benefits. Normally, in other circumstances, such claims of antedating will have serious repercussion on the persons who had already been promoted, upsetting their seniority. In this case no such claims have been made by the applicant. He is not even claiming any other financial benefits like arrears of salary in the event of his notional antedating of appointment.
14. Applicant alleges that although the vacancy for Annexure A-2 appointment in his case arose in 1998, it was on account of the latches on the part of the respondents, his appointment became delayed till 17.10.2000. Obviously Annexure A-2 is a selection made from amongst the ED Agents. In such cases, it can be argued that chances of promotions are only the aspirations of the employees, not a right vested in them. However, in view of the bleak prospects of a GDS for being posted as Group D, it is the dream of every EDA/GDS to get a selection at the earliest in order to mitigate his bleak prospects of promotion and the deplorably low financial benefits as EDA/GDS. In the circumstance, this Tribunal is inclined to accept the contention of the applicant that had he been promoted in 1998, he would have been qualified for minimum pension as per the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In the circumstance, the following order is passed :
Respondents shall consider Annexure A-3 and Annexure A-4 representations of the applicant in the light of the observations made in this order for treating the date of arising of the vacancy in 1998 as the notional date of appointment of the applicant and to grant him the pensionary benefits as per the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Respondents shall pass a considered order in this regard within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate to the applicant.
15. The O.A is disposed of as above. No order as to costs.

(Dated this the 09th day of December 2014) U.SARATHCHANDRAN JUDICIAL MEMBER asp