OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1941** **O.P (CAT).No.75 OF 2018(Z)** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 941/2010 DATED 12-04-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH.** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **SINI.T.R., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O SAJEEV C.V., GDSBPM, PALLITHODU, THURAVOOR, CHERTHALAI, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT MUNDAKAL CHIRA, THALAYAZHAM P.O., VAIKOM, PIN-686 607.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**UNION OF INDIA,**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,**| ||**MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,**| ||**NEW DELHI-110 001.**| |**2**|**CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.**| **3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, TRIVANDRUM SOUTH DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA-688 012. 4 SUREKHA. R., SURYA SOUMYA, KARUVATTA NORTH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 517. R1-R3 BY SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC.** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).76/2018(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **- 2 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1941 OP (CAT).No.76 OF 2018** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 847/2010 DATED 12-04-2018 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **V.K. ANILKUMAR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O KUNJIKRISHNA PILLAI, GDSMD PARANDODE (PROVISIONAL), RESIDING AT UTHRATTATHI,VALIYA KALINGU, PARANDODE P.O., ARYANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 542.** **BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2 CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **3 SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, TRIVANDRUM SOUTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 036.** **R1-R3 BY SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC.** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.10.2019, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).75/2018(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **- 3 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **K.Vinod Chandran & V.G.Arun, JJ. --------------------------------** **O.P (CAT) Nos.75 & 76 of 2018 -------------------------------Dated, this the 30[th] day of October, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** **Vinod Chandran, J.** **The petitioners herein impugn the order of the Tribunal rejecting their request to employ them continuously as Gramin Dak Sevaks [for brevity “GDS”], in preference to persons with lesser service, as also consider them for regular appointment to the posts in which they have been continuing. The applicants also sought for a declaration that the Circular, produced as Exhibit P4 in O.P(CAT) 75 of 2012, is** _**ultra vires**_ **the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for brevity “ID Act”] and opposed to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The claim against the Circular was insofar as it prescribed a minimum three years continuous service for granting preference in re-employment of GDS; when the ID Act stipulated only 240 days of employment in an year.** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 4 -** **2. The Tribunal, relying on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Secretary, State of Karnataka v**_ **.** _**Umadevi**_ **[** _**(2006) 4 SCC 1**_ **] that there could be no entry to public employment through back door, found that the petitioners-applicants are** _**ad hoc**_ **employees whose appointment were as a stop gap arrangement. It was found that there was nothing to show that they were engaged as provisional hands after a due selection carried out pursuant to a public notification; who alone are to be granted re-employment as per Exhibit P4.** **3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners Sri.M.R.Hariraj would point out that the distinction drawn by the Department insofar as “outsiders/ substitutes” and “provisional hands” does not really exist. In practice, appointments are made only on temporary basis from persons who have knowledge of the locality in which the Post Office is situated, wherein there is a vacancy; while provisional hands are continued till the vacancy exists. Insofar as substitutes like the petitioners are concerned,** **- 5 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **artificial break in service is created, so as to deny them continuous service in a three year period. It is in this context that a specific contention was raised based on the provisions of the ID Act, which was not considered by the Tribunal.** _**General Manager, Telecom v**_ **.** _**A. Srinivasa Rao**_ **[** _**(1997) 8 SCC 767**_ **] was relied on to urge that the Postal Department would answer the definition of an “industry” under the ID Act.** _**Superintendent of Post Offices v**_ **.** _**P.K.Rajamma**_ **[** _**(1977) 3 SCC 94**_ **] was placed before us to contend that E.D.Agents were not casual workers but work under the direct control and supervision of the State. Reference to** _**State of Assam v**_ **.** _**Kanak Chandra Dutta**_ **[(** _**1967) 1 SCR 679**_ **] was also made to distinguish a 'post' from a 'holder' and to bring home the meaning that was assigned to a civil post. The attempt is to contend that the post to which the petitioners were appointed was a civil post and the Department, being an 'industry' under the ID Act, going by Section 25F continuous service has to be understood as 240 days service in an year. It is also urged that if that** **- 6 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **contention is approved, then necessarily the Postal Department would be obliged to engage persons employed as substitutes on a 'last come first go' basis, which has also been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in** _**Gaziabad Development Authority v**_ **.** _**Vikram Chaudhary**_ **[** _**(1995) 5 SCC 210**_ **] as an imperative rule of service jurisprudence; even in the absence of a statutory mandate.** **4. The learned Central Government Counsel Sri.T.V.Vinu, on the other hand, submits that there is a clear distinction between “provisional” appointments and engagements made of “outsiders/substitutes”. Reference is made to Exhibit P4 Circular, the complete version of which is available in 'Swamy's Compilation of Service Rules for Postal Gramin Dak Sevak'. Two Annexures are pointed out, which are Annexures 'A' and 'B'. Annexure-A is an offer of appointment in the case of provisional appointments whenever a vacancy arises and Annexure-B when the appointment is to a vacancy which is termed as “put off”, meaning the incumbent being kept away on suspension or termination, for** **- 7 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **reason of disciplinary or judicial proceeding. While the provisional appointments are made by a regular mode of selection, substitutes are appointed more on personal acquaintance of the agent occupying the post, while proceeding on leave or when resigning or retiring. There being no regular selection in such cases, a continued employment in an available post would do violence to the principles laid down in** _**Umadevi**_ **.** **5. The learned Central Government Counsel would specifically refer to the reliefs sought for by the petitioners-applicants in the O.A. to contend that none of the reliefs can be granted. The first relief sought is to declare that Circular No.19-34/99-ED & Trg. dated** **30.12.1999 is** _**ultra vires**_ **the ID Act and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is pointed out that the Circular does not refer to 'outsiders/substitutes' like the petitioners herein and is only with respect to 'provisional hands'. The second relief is to direct the** **respondents to engage the applicants as GDS in preference to persons with lesser service within** **- 8 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **Alappuzha Division. It is pointed out that the outsiders/substitutes, who are engaged in the post of GDS, are only temporarily engaged, that too by the regular incumbent and not by the Postal Department. Continuing them in other Post Offices, in the same division would result in there being issued no notification for appointment from the general public.** **This would also create a situation where the substitutes of regular incumbents, appointed temporarily, being continued uninterruptedly for reason only of the acquaintance of the permanent incumbent with that temporary appointee. The third relief in O.A.No.941 of 2010 [from which OP(CAT) 75/2018 arises] is for appointment of the petitioner in preference to the 4[th] respondent, who is a provisional hand appointed after due process of inviting applications from the public.** **==> picture [397 x 11] intentionally omitted <==** **Sri.Hariraj's contention regarding the nature of employment of E.D.staff in the Postal Department. GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, specifically Rule 7** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 9 -** **regarding 'Leave' and the Director-General's Instructions as available from D.G., P&T., General Circular No.23 dated 24.02.1970 is pointed out. The provision is that every ED Agent during leave should arrange for his work being carried on by a substitute who should be a person approved by the authority competent to sanction the leave, which approval has also to be obtained in writing. The Director General's Instructions No.(2)(2) is as under:** **“(2)(2) During leave, every ED Agent should arrange for his work being carried on by a substitute who should be a person approved by the authority competent to sanction leave to him. Such approval should be obtained in writing”.** **7. Every ED Agent when he proceeds on leave, has to have a substitute especially considering the nature of his duties, some time in far-flung areas. Further, any ED Agent (now GDS) or substitute has to have a knowledge of the topography and the locality, since the sorting and distribution of postal articles as also its delivery would depend upon such knowledge.** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 10 -** **Hence, every ED Agent has a ready-substitute, always, for immediate appointment on any exigency, for whom approval is also obtained from the higher authorities. It is also pointed out from U.O.No.43-13/70-Pen., dated 29.07.1970 that the absolute responsibility of a substitute lies on the permanent incumbent and any loss caused to the Department by any action of the substitute would be recoverable from the permanent incumbent. It is in this background the Postal Department works and when a permanent staff vacates his office by reason of retirement or resignation, the Postal Department finds it convenient to appoint the substitute, engaged by the permanent incumbent who vacated the post, for reason of his familiarity with the work and location as also the approval obtained from the Controlling Authority. However, in the case of a permanent incumbent who is facing disciplinary or judicial proceeding, the substitute arranged by him has a stigma and hence, there is a provisional appointment made. This also can only be from the locality for reason of the acquaintance of the area being an** **- 11 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **essential requirement for the postal staff.** **8. The working of the staff as enumerated herein above is in tandem with the distinction drawn by the Postal Department of outsiders/substitutes and provisional appointments as is seen from the extract made by the Tribunal from the Department's counter affidavit, which is extracted by us hereunder:** **“4. … When a GDS post falls vacant action is immediately taken to re-assess the workload of the post to ascertain whether the post is justifiable to be filled up. Statistics are taken for this purpose and work load calculated. If found justifiable, a proposal is taken up with the O/s.Chief Postmaster General seeking approval for filling up. On receipt of approval, notification is issued inviting applications from the open market and employment exchange. All these procedures are time consuming and during this time, as the post cannot be kept vacant which would affect delivery of mail, outsiders like the applicant who have some experience in doing delivery work are engaged on stop gap basis to do the work so as to avoid disruption in delivery of mail ….** **5. … Normally provisional appointments are resorted to in the put-off vacancies of the** **- 12 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **regular incumbents pending inquiry. If after the inquiry proceedings, the original incumbent was found innocent and acquitted of the charges, he would have to be reinstated into service. Such discharged provisional appointees having not less than three years service, had the right to be given appointment in any GDS post in the respective Division. If there were no vacancy at that time, their names were to be included in the waiting list of GDS maintained in the Divisions and they were entitled to be appointed against any subsequently arising GDS posts in the Division …”.** **9. Exhibit P4 has also to be noticed and we extract the portion as against which a declaration is sought that it should comply with the terms of the ID Act:** **“2. Efforts should be made to give alternative employment to ED Agents who are appointed provisionally and subsequently discharged from service due to administrative reasons, if at the time of discharge they had put in not less than three years' continuous approved service. In such cases, their names should be included in the waiting list of ED Agents discharged from service, prescribed** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 13 -** **in D.G., P&T., Letter No.43-4/77-Pen., dated 23.2.1979.** **[D.G., P&T., Letter no.43-4/77-Pen., dated the 18[th] May, 1979 and Circular No.19-34/99ED&Trg., dated the 30[th] December, 1999]”.** **10. We have to notice the facts from one of the** **cases, the better of which is available in OP(CAT) No.75/18. The applicant therein was first appointed as GDSSPM in 2005 for about four months. Later, in the very same Post Office of Kokkothamangalam she was appointed for various duration in a resignation post in 2009 and 2010. Then she was appointed to Pallithodu Post Office, where occurred a vacancy on promotion wherein she continued upto 03.11.2010 when she filed the Original Application and obtained an order for continuance. The Original Application was also necessitated for reason of the 4[th] respondent being appointed provisionally to the post she was occupying. Her contention in the Original Application was that on the principle of 'last come first go' she could not be terminated in preference to a provisional appointment. The petitioner has also charted out the vacancies to** **- 14 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **which she was appointed, in the O.A. itself. On going through that, we find that her initial appointment in 2005 was to a promotion post, which appointment ceased on a regular person occupying the said post. However, the said person resigned on 01.02.2008, after which she was continued till 31.01.2010, with short breaks.** **11.** _**P.K.Rajamma**_ **was in a different circumstance of the “Extra Departmental Agents”, who were the petitioners before the High Court, whose conditions of service were governed by a body of rules called “ Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. They claimed protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and assailed their termination as violative of the protection afforded. As of now, what regulates the service is “Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011”. It is as per the orders prior to Rules of 2011 that it is pointed out that a regular incumbent is required to have always a substitute appointed when he takes leave, who is also engaged by the Postal Department when a contingency** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 15 -** **occurs like death, retirement or resignation of a regular hand. This order is still in force after the Rules of 2011, but the E.D.Agents are now GDS. Hence, what was found in** _**P.K.Rajamma**_ **in the case of ED Agents, whose conduct and service where regulated by a definite rule cannot be applied to the substitute appointments made by the regular incumbents in the post of GDS.** **12.** _**Kanak Chandra Dutta**_ **held that a civil post means a post not connected with defence and outside the regular civil services. It was hence the finding that ED Agents are occupying a regular civil post and governed by the Rules of 1964. In the present case, however, the regular appointees to the post of GDS definitely holds a civil post, but looking at the distinction as brought out by** _**Kanak Chandra Dutta**_ **that “a post exists apart from the holder of the post”, it has to be found that the substitute only temporarily occupies the post and does not have a claim to have the protection of Article 311(2). As soon as the regular incumbent joins back or an appointment regularly or** **- 16 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **provisionally is carried out, by the Postal Department, the outsider/substitute loses the right to continue in the post. We cannot also find the application of ID Act insofar as 240 days service in an year alone being the norm, for reason of temporary appointment being to a civil post and under the regular civil services for reason of the Postal and Telegraphs being a Department under the Central Government.** **13. We also notice that there is a clear distinction insofar as the outsiders/substitutes and provisional hands, the latter of whom are appointed after a regular selection. The terms and conditions of engagement of GDS is provided in Rule 3-A of the GDS Rules, clause (vii) of which is extracted hereunder:** **"(vii) Residence in post village/delivery jurisdiction of the Post Office within one month after selection but before engagement shall be mandatory for a Sevak; xxx xxx xxx".** **This dispels the contention of the petitioner that only** **a person in the locality can be appointed as GDS and, hence, the outsider/substitute who has been continuing for a considerable period would be the best person to** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 17 -** **be appointed. The requirement only mandates that after selection of a person and before engagement as a GDS, he shall commence his residence in the locality which would also be the premises from which his official activities are carried on.** **14. The nature of work and appointment of outsiders/substitutes and provisional hands as explained by Sri.Hariraj only commends us to make a clear distinction between the two appointments. A provisional hand who is regularly selected and appointed, only can have a claim for continuance, that too if he/she continued uninterruptedly for three years. This provision is made only since such provisional hands are appointed in place of persons who are “put off” in the sense of any disciplinary/judicial proceeding pending against them. These proceedings could extend beyond a period of time and hence any person continued in such a vacancy would get a right for re-employment if continuously employed for three years. This is again only a provision for re-employment and not regularization. When provisional hands are** **- 18 -** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018** **appointed to a vacancy pending regular recruitment, the provisional hand who has a continuous service acquires a claim to be considered. This benefit conferred on a regularly selected provisional hand cannot be conceded to an outsider/substitute whose method of appointment and terms of engagement drastically differ from that of a provisional hand. We are, hence, compelled to sustain the order of the Tribunal, though on the different reasoning given by us hereinabove.** **15. Before parting with the case, we have to notice that both the petitioners were continued for long based on interim orders. They were also continued uninterruptedly which does not enable a claim of re-employment, since the uninterrupted continuance was only by virtue of the interim order of this Court. The 4[th] respondent in O.P.(CAT) No.75/2018 would also be no more interested for reason of the sheer passage of time. In such circumstances, we only direct that the petitioner be continued till a provisional hand or a regular appointment is made to the post. The official respondents have the authority to make either of such** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 19 -** **appointment to the post now occupied by the petitioners herein. If the Rules permit, the petitioners can also apply for such appointment when public notification is issued. Their continuance based on the interim order or based on our direction would not enable a claim for regularization or for a re-employment.** **With the above reservation, the Original** **Petitions (CAT) are dismissed.** **Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE** **Sd/V.G.ARUN JUDGE** **vku/-** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 20 -** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 75/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/PALLITHODU DATED 29.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.** |**ANNEXURE A2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3/PALLITHODU**<br>**DATED 29.10.2010 ISSUED BY THE THIRD**<br>**RESPONDENT.**| |---|---| |**ANNEXURE A1A**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED**| ||**29.8.2005.**| |**ANNEXURE A1B**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED**| ||**15.3.2006.**| |**ANNEXURE A1C**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED**| ||**1.2.2008.**| |**ANNEXURE A1D**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED**| ||**1.5.2008.**| |**ANNEXURE A1E**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.GDS/LEAVE/KKM**| ||**DATED 18.7.2008.**| |**ANNEXURE A1F**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED**| ||**5.2.2009.**| |**ANNEXURE A1G**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO**| ||**NO.GDSSO/KOKKOTHAMANGALAM,DATED NIL.**| |**ANNEXURE A1H**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED**| ||**8.2.2010.**| |**EXHIBIT P1:**|**A TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 12.4.2018**| ||**IN OA NO.941/2010 OF THE CENTRAL**| ||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**| |**EXHIBIT P2:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION**| ||**ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES THEREOF.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY**| ||**THE RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE DG P&T LETTER NO:43-**| ||**4/77-PEN DATED 18.5.1979 AS AMENDED BY**| ||**CIRCULAR NO.19-34/99-ED&TRG DATED**| ||**30.12.1999 AS PUBLISHED IN THE SWAMY'S**| ||**COMPILATION OF SERVICE RULES FOR POSTAL**| ||**GRAMIN DAK SEVAK.**| **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 21 -** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 5.8.2011 IN OA 941/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC 17727/2004. EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.8.2017 IN OP CAT 3488/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R1 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20.7.2017 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OA.NO.224/2015 FILED BY SHRI P.K.SAJEEV.** **[TRUE COPY]** **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 22 -** ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 76/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1A**|**A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED**| |---|---| ||**17.9.1993.**| |**ANNEXURE A1B**|**A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED**| ||**18.1.1994.**| |**ANNEXURE A1C**|**A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED**| ||**23.8.1994.**| |**ANNEXURE A1D**|**A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED**| ||**30.10.1995.**| |**ANNEXURE A1E**|**A TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED**| ||**17.5.2000.**| |**ANNEXURE A1F**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED**| ||**3.11.2005.**| |**ANNEXURE A1G**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ACQUITTANCE ROLL FOR**| ||**JULY, 2010.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION**| ||**NO.ASP(NDG.)/GDS/APPT/2010-11 DATED**| ||**27.8.2010 ISSUED FOR THE 3RD RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE R1**|**A TRUE COPY OF SPECIMEN OF APPOINTMENT OF**| ||**ORDERS ISSUED TO PROVISIONAL APPOINTEES AS**| ||**PER LETTER NO.43-4/77 DATED 18.5.1979**| ||**ANNEXURE A DG POST.**| |**ANNEXURE R2**|**A TRUE COPY OF SPECIMEN OF APPOINTMENT OF**| ||**ORDERS ISSUED TO PROVISIONAL APPOINTEES AS**| ||**PER LETTER NO.43-4/77 PEN DATED 18.5.1979**| ||**ANNEXURE B DG POST.**| |**EXHIBTI P1:**|**A TRUE COPY OF FINAL ORDER DATED 12.4.2018**| ||**IN OA NO.847/2010 OF THE CENTRAL**| ||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**| |**EXHIBIT P2:**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION**| ||**ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES THEREOF.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY**| ||**THE RESPONDENTS.**| **OP(CAT).75 & 76 of 2018 - 23 -** **EXHIBIT P4** **A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.** **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE DG P&T LETTER NO.434/77-PEN DATED 18.5.1979 AS AMENDED BY CIRCULAR NO.19-34/99-ED&TRG DATED 30.12.1999 AS PUBLISHED IN THE SWAMY'S COMPILATION OF SERVICE RULES FOR POSTAL GRAMIN DAK SEVAK.** **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 5.8.2011 IN OA 847/2010 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.3.2005 IN WPC 17727/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.8.2017 IN OP CAT 3521/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** ## **[TRUE COPY]**