GDS/CHQ/44/1/2011 Dated: 20.07.2011
To
Sri Kapil Sibal,
Hon'ble Minister for Communications & IT
Eloctroniketan, 6 CGO Complex,
New Delhi-110001
Sub:- Wrong and illegal revision of "Department of Posts Gramin Dak
Sevaks (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001" as Department of Posts (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.
Respected Sir,
The Departmental of Posts revised the then existing "Department of Posts E.D Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules 1964" as Department of Posts G.D.S. (Conduct & Employment) Rules 2001" after the partial and turnicated implementation of the recommendations of Justice Talwar Committee. Since this was an obvious attempt of substitute the 'service' of the ED employees to mere 'employment' in order to obviate the recommendations of Justice Talwar Committee, we had registered our strong reservation and protest to this change, but the department chose to hang on to its decision.
Now, by the amendment/revision of the rules especially by substituting the "employment" as "engagements" there has been a severe onslaught on the conditions of service of the G.D.S employees. This has been an attempt to over-ride the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K. Rajamma's case (Civil Appeals No 1172, 1354, 1355, 1751 of 1972). A copy of the Judgement is enclosed for ready reference. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as below in the Judgement:
"It is thus clear that an extra departmental agent is not a casual worker but holds a post under the administrative control of the state. It is apparent from the rules that the employment of an extra departmental agent is in a post which
exists "apart from"(sing) the person who happens to fill it at anytime. Though such a post is outside the regular Civil Services, there is no doubt it is a post under the state. The tests of a civil post laid down by this court in Kanak Chandra Datta's case (Supra) are clearly satisfied in the case of the extra departmental agents."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly hold that the ED Agent (now GDS employees) hold an employment against a post which exists. The Hon'ble Court has held that the ED Agent is not a casual worker and hence substitution of the "employment" as "engagement" is in letter contempt of the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We would respectfully submit that Mr. Nataraja Murti who recommended this substitution is not above the Supreme Court and the department should not have accepted and acted up on such recommendation bilind folded especially in face of the Judgement of the Supreme Court.
As soon as the report of the one man committee under Sri Nataraja Murti, a retired bureaucrat was out, we lodged our strong protest against this recommendations vide our letter No. GDS/CHQ/41/1/2008 dated 03.11.2008 & 14/11/2008 but the Department chose to rush through the amendment to hurt the letter and spirit of the Judgement of the Supreme Court and the interests of the employees, despite our strong reservation and protest.
We are confident that your goodself as an eminent jurist will consider the implications of the amendment in its right spirit and order that the amendment is withdrawn. We shall be thankful for restoration of 1964 rules.
With profound regards,
--
S.S.Mahadevaiah
General Secretary
All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees Union
