Arvind Kejriwal on Expose' of Biggest Ever Scam after Independen
| |
|
Showing posts with label FIGHT FOR JUSTICE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FIGHT FOR JUSTICE. Show all posts
Monday, May 6, 2013
Arvind Kejriwal on Expose' of Biggest Ever Scam after Independence
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
India’s first Mobile Application for Women Safety
India’s first Mobile Application for Women Safety
Tech Mahindra had long back developed an application called FightBack which was being used only by the staff members of Mahindra Group.
After the gang-rape of a woman in New Delhi, Mahindra’s has now thrown open this smart phone application for public use, beyond Mahindra employees.
The FightBack application tracks a user’s location and sends SOS messages to selected contacts in case of an emergency.
This application is now available for download on the company website for free & IS ONLY FOR INDIAN MOBILE NUMBERS.
The FightBack app allows the user to press on a panic button whenever he/she feels unsafe.
It tracks the location using GPS and alerts chosen contacts about the location map and is available on Android and Blackberry.
| |
|
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Message of the President of India on the eve of the New Year
Message of the President of India on the eve of the New Year
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Presidents Secretariat
31-December-2012 19:41 IST
Message of the President of India on the eve of the New Year
On the eve of the New Year 2013, in a message, the President of India, Shri Pranab Mukherjee has said “We mark the advent of the New Year under a pall of gloom, as the nation mourns the tragic loss of a brave young girl, who became the victim of a heinous crime.
Let us dedicate 2013 to improving the security and welfare of women in our country. Let us use this moment to introspect and earnestly seek ways in which we can address the mindset which lies at the root of such incidents in order that we may achieve dignity and equality for women in our country.
I extend my greetings and best wishes to all my fellow citizens for a purposeful and productive New Year which takes our nation forward to a better future. Let us strive hard to fulfill our unrealized dreams with vigour and determination”.
| |
|
Friday, October 26, 2012
NFPE President's Desk
Thousand lies can never become a truth
nobody can break the unity of postal
workers
* lessons of the fragmented strike
*
The
GDS strike of Mahadeviah group ended on 22.10.2012. In fact it was fizzled
out. Eventhough from 16.10.2012 onwards the leaders claimed 100% participation
in all circles, the truth was entirely different. Out of 22 circles, in 10
circles it was less than 5% and 6 circles only less than 10% of the Gramin Dak
Sevaks went on strike. In the remaining six circles it varied from 12% to 27%
of the GDS. All India average of the strike is 18.1% of the total GDS. This is
the real picture of the strike. All other claims are false and naked lies. The
percentage came down day-by-day and on 22nd the All
India average was only 5% of the total of about three lakhs GDS. Thus the
strike fizzled out without any settlement. (Those who have doubt about the
figures can get it under RTI from all Circles and verify the truth). Senior
officers of the Department including Secretary, Department of Posts, Member
(Personnel) and Minister Communications and Minister of State for Communications
also rejected the request of the leaders for a last minute face-saving
settlement.
NFPE has not made any adverse comment or statement against the strike or against
the false claim of the leaders regarding All India Strike percentage, eventhough
the Mahadevaiah group spread canards against NFPE and its leaders before the
strike and also during the strike. If NFPE had put it in its website the actual
percentage of the strike in each circle, the strike would have fizzled out in
the second day itself. But NFPE never wants to break any strike, whether
percentage is less or large. Breaking the strike is not the tradition of
NFPE. So we tolerated every malicious attack against NFPE and its leaders till
the strike is over. Even now, while exposing the lies and hidden agenda of the
Mahadevaiah group, we respect the sentiments of the GDS who participated in the
strike without knowing the evil designs of the leadership. We hope that
those GDS who are misguided by the leaders, shall join the united struggle of
the Central Govt. Employees on 12th December
2012 and also join the united movement of the Postal Employees led by National
Federation of Postal Employees.
Everybody knows that the attack against the Postal Employees, whether it is GDS
regularization or New Postal Policy 2012, is due to the neo-liberal economic
policies pursued by the Central Government. To fight against these policies,
the largest unity of the employees and workers is the need of the hour. Other
than united struggle there is no shortcut. When NFPE is trying to build up
such a united struggle, unfortunately everytime the Mahadevaiah group is trying
to break the unity at any cost. During 2008 when NFPE and all its
affiliated unions decided to go on indefinite strike from 06.01.2009, against
the retrograde recommendations of the Natarajamurthy Committee, Mahadevaiah gave
a call for indefinite strike from 17.12.2008, i.e., 20 days ahead of the joint
strike of NFPE. Now again, due to our efforts when all the employees unitedly
decided to go on strike on 12th December 2012, in which GDS demand is also one
of the main demands, Mahadevaiah gave another sudden indefinite strike call from
16.10.2012. He is playing in the hands of the ruling class and deliberately
trying to break the unity among the departmental employees and Gramin Dak
Sevaks. The leader is behaving as an agent of the Government and poor GDS are
the victims. GDS are not going to be benefited by such sectarian strike.
Realising this majority of the GDS refused to join the ill-motivated strike this
time.
On 10.05.2012, Sri. Mahadevaiah made following comments in his signed circular,
copy of which is available with us:- “The AIPEDEU is the single largest
Postal Union, larger than all other Postal organisations, including NFPE......
They are afraid of AIPEDEU” (!!!). When somebody claims that I am bigger
than everyone else and all are afraid of me, we can imagine the mindset of such
a person. NFPE leaders will never make such egoistic statements. Again in
another circular which was circulated among the GDS throughout the country
without putting name, the following derogatory and insulting comments are made
against the legendary leader of the Postal Trade Union movement Late Com:
K.Adinarayana - “Nobody including the great person repeatedly mentioned as
the messiah of Postal workers including EDAs could even stir. What was he
doing?” Thus it is very clear that the intention of Mahadevaiah is to
project himself above all the leaders of the Postal Trade Union movement right
from Tarapada to Adinarayana. In fact he was elected in the year 1999 and
became the General Secretary of the only recognised Union with the help of Com.
Adinarayana and NFPE. But after 1999, there was no gain for GDS, eventhose
benefits achieved by NFPE through several years of struggle upto 1999, was taken
away by the Government during the tenure of Mahadevaiah. He continued his
attack against NFPE. His number one enemy is NFPE. This time the leader
thought he can score through making it a fragmented game. He want to avoid
larger unity of entire Postal employees (Departmental and GDS) and also he want
to avoid NFPE as he thought that if he join the joint struggle with NFPE he
cannot become the hero. He wanted to play one-upmanship over
NFPE.
Naturally those who loved NFPE said “goodbye” to such a leader who is
undemocratic, anti-NFPE, egoistic and decided to form separate GDS Union called
AIPEU-GDS (NFPE) declaring themselves that they will work under the banner of
NFPE and will be a part and parcel of NFPE. NFPE decided to give associate
membership to the new GDS Union led by Com. Panduranga Rao. After formation of
the new NFPE GDS Union Gramin Dak Sevaks of majority of the Circles joined the
new union enbloc. Remaining circles also GDS stated deserting Mahadevaiah group
in a big way and joined NFPE GDS Union. The very existence of the so-called
recognised union was challenged due to the mass-scale exodus of the GDS. Even
in Karnataka which is the home-circle of the leader, 60% of the GDS joined the
new union. (Anybody can collect the strike percentage of Karnataka Circle under
RTI and verify the fact). It is at this moment the leader decided to declare
a sudden strike from 16.10.2012 for his own existence and to prevent remaining
GDS from deserting him. But majority of the GDS realised his hidden agenda and
refused to join the ill-motivated strike. That is why the strike fizzled out
and ended without any settlement.
NFPE calls upon the entire Postal Employees including Gramin Dak Sevaks to draw
lessons from this fragmented strike and guard against those elements who are
trying to break the unity of Postal employees again and again by spreading
hatred among Departmental employees and Gramin Dak Sevaks. Let us defeat such
forces of destruction and unite together under the banner of our great
organisation, National Federation of Postal Employees. Let us strengthen the
new GDS Union, AIPEU-GDS (NFPE) and ensure cent per cent unity among all Postal
employees. Let us work unitedly to make the historic strike of 12 December 2012
a grand success.
Remember, we are fighting against the anti-people, anti-working class policies
of the Central Government. Only a class oriented militant trade union like
NFPE can alone build the unity of the entire Postal Workers and lead such a
struggle in the Postal department. Fragmented strike will create disunity and
disappointment and will weaken the striking potential of the Postal employees
and ultimately the Govt. will take advantage of it. Our enemy is the
ruling class and all the toiling masses are our comrades-in-arms in the struggle
against the imperialist neo-liberal globalisation policies of the ruling class.
Let us not allow anybody to break this unity.
source:http://www.aipeup3chq.com/2012/10/president-s-desk.html
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
|
Thursday, October 25, 2012
GDS - Whether a Servant or an Agent - State Of Assam & Ors vs Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta on 3 October, 1966
State Of Assam & Ors vs Shri Kanak Chandra Dutta on 3 October, 1966
Equivalent citations: 1967 AIR 884, 1967 SCR (1) 679
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.
PETITIONER:
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHRI KANAK CHANDRA DUTTA
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
03/10/1966
BENCH:
BACHAWAT, R.S.
BENCH:
BACHAWAT, R.S.
DAYAL, RAGHUBAR
RAO, K. SUBBA (CJ)
HIDAYATULLAH, M.
SIKRI, S.M.
CITATION:
1967 AIR 884 1967 SCR (1) 679
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1977 SC1677 (3)
D 1979 SC 979 (12)
R 1981 SC 53 (14)
C 1984 SC 161 (27)
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 311(2)-Civil post-Mauzadar in Assam Valley, if holder of civil post entitled to protection of Article.
HEADNOTE:
The respondent, who was a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley, was dismissed from office without complying with the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. His writ petition to the High Court was allowed on the ground that he held a civil post under the State of Assam and was entitled to the protection of the Article.
In appeal by the State,
HELD : In the light of the system of recruitment, employment and functions, a Mauzadar is a servant and the holder of a civil post, under the State,, entitled to the protection of the Article.
A civil post means a post not connected with the defence and outside the regular civil services. It is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached. It is under the administrative control of the State but need not necessarily carry "a definite rate of pay" and may involve only part-time employment. A person holding the post is a person serving or employed under the State. The existence of the relationship of master and servant between the State and a person holding a post under it, is indicated by the State's right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him., its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration. Such a relationship may be established by -the presence of all or some of these indicia in conjunction with other circumstances, and its existence is a question of fact in each case. [682 G, H; 683 A. B, H] Under the Mauzadari system of collecting revenue, prevailing in the Assam Valley, the revenue charge of a Mauza and the responsibility for the whole revenue of it, in the first instance, rest with the Mauzadar. Originally he may have been a revenue farmer and an independent contractor but under the existing system, he is a subordinate public servant working under the supervision and control of the Deputy Commissioner. He is a Revenue Officer and ex-officio Assistant Settlement Officer exercising delegated powers of Government, and the State has the power and the right to select and appoint him and the power to suspend and dismiss him. Though he may not be a whole-time employee and receives by way of remuneration a commission on his collections and sometimes a salary he holds an office on the revenue side of the administration to which specific and onerous duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached. [683 E-G]
Observations in Venkata Swamy v. Superintendent of Post Offices A.I.R. 1957 Orissa 112, that a part-time employee cannot be the holder of a civil post disapproved.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1964 .
6SupC.I./66-15
680
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 13, 1963 of the Assam and Nagaland High Court in Civil Rule No. 387 of 1962.
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General and Naunit Lal, for the appellant.
K. R. Chaudhuri, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. This appeal raises the question whether a Mau- zadar in the Assam Valley holds a civil post under the State of Assam, and is entitled to the protection of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. On March 4, 1939, respondent, Kanak Chandra Dutta, was appointed Mauzadar of Mancotta Monza in the Dibrugarh Sub-division of Lakhimpur District. His father also before his death was the Mauzadar of Mancotta Monza for about 52 years from 1885 to 1938. Under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur, the respondent was suspended on August 22, 1949 and was dismissed from the office of the Mauzadar on July 4, 1962. It is common case that this dismissal from office was made without complying with the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. On a writ petition filed by the respondent, the Assam High Court quashed the order of dismissal. The High Court held that the respondent held a civil post under the State of Assam, and was entitled to the protection of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The correctness of this finding is challenged by the State of Assam in this appeal by special leave.
Under the Mauzadari system of collecting revenue prevailing in the Assam Valley, the revenue charge of a Monza and the responsibility for the whole revenue of it in the first instance rest with the Mauzadar. The Mauzadar is spoken of as a "revenue contractor", see Baden-Powell's Land Systems of British India, Vol. 3, p. 459. A brief description of the Mauzadari system is given at pp. 56 and 57 of the Introduction to the Assam Land Revenue Manual, 6th Edn. The executive instructions appearing in paragraphs 115 to 159 and 167(a) at pp. 203 to 215 and 217 to 222 give the method of selection, appointment and dismissal of a Mauzadar, the duties and emoluments of the office and the registers to be kept and maintained by him. The Mauzadar is generally an influential and well-to-do resident of his Monza. lie may be appointed and dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner subject to the Commissioner's approval and suspended by the Deputy Commissioner on his own authority. A Mauzadar's successor is ordinarily selected from amongst the members of his family. If a suitable heir of the deceased Mauzadar is a minor, the post may be kept open for him for a period not exceeding three years, an agent being appointed in the meantime to carry on the duties of the Mauzadar. Every Mauzadar before his appointment has to execute a written 681
agreement (kabuliyat) in the prescribed form. He is also required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner.
A Mauzadar is a public servant whose primary duty is to collect land revenue and other Government dues with the collection of which he is entrusted. He is responsible for the collection of poll-tax, house-tax, tauzi-bahir revenue, grazing fees and forest dues. He undertakes to pay into the treasury the full amount of all instalments of land revenue and local rates included in the Jamabandi and of house-tax, poll-tax and grazing fees within one month of the date on which they fall due for payment. In regard to land revenue, his duties are confined to collection and he is not concerned with its assessment, the settlement of land and the checking of maps or assessment papers. He is charged with the special duties of supervising the performance of duties by Gaonburas, to receive applications for waste lands which he is authorised to entertain and to submit them with a report to the proper revenue authority, to submit reports of cases sent to him by special order for local enquiry, to assist the district authorities in the assessment of income-tax, to report, when so directed, upon the sufficiency of the security offered by the lessees of Government or Local Board ferries, fisheries etc., to submit weekly reports upon the condition of crops, the prevalence of epidemics amongst men or cattle, the loss of life caused by wild animals and the appearance of insect pests, to compile and submit to the Civil Surgeon a monthly return of vital statistics, to check the Gaonburas' reports of births and deaths by local inspection, to effect field mutations and field partitions in uncontested cases, to assist Government in any work connected with the village organi- sation system, to warn persons not to allow their cattle to stray on or damage the roads, to report offenders and encroachments on roadside lands and to submit weekly returns of collections. Generally, a Mauzadar is required to act as the Deputy Commissioner's assistant in all administrative matters within his Mouza so far as he may be called upon to do so.
In order to deal properly with mutation and other work, the Mauzadar has free access to the settlement papers in the hands of mandals, and it is the duty of the mandals to attend upon him, when required, during such investigations as are conducted by him. The Mauzadar is required to keep and maintain a number of official registers, and minute details of keeping the accounts and the registers are prescribed. The criminal prosecution of a Mauzadar requires the Commissioner's sanction. In exceptional cases, the Deputy Commissioner may impose upon him an executive fine of an amount not exceeding Rs. 200/-.
682
The Mauzadar is permitted to address his correspondence with Government offices "service bearing", and is given a small annual allowance for the provision of stationery. I* is responsible for the payment of process fee on all processes issued at his instance. His remuneration as Mauzadar is generally by a commission on the revenue, local rates and grazing dues collected by him, but he may also be paid a fixed salary.
The Mauzadar may be invested with the power of attachment and sale of movables under s. 69 of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 (Regulation No. I of 1886). Mauzadars are appointed Revenue Officers under s. 124 of the Regulation. All Mauzadars in the Assam Valley and in the case of Mauzadars who are minors, their Sarbarahkars have been appointed ex-officio Assistant Settlement Officers and invested with the powers to effect registration under s. 53(A) in uncontested cases and to dispose of under Chap. VI of the Regulation all applications for partition of revenue- paying estates in which no objection is preferred. See footnotes to ss. 124, 133 and 137 of the Regulation at pp. 41, 44 and 45 of the Manual.
A Mauzadar may own a tea garden and other landed property and engage in trade or politics, but if any of his extraneous occupations interferes seriously. with his primary duties as a Mauzadar, the Deputy Commissioner is required to consider whether he should be retained in his office.
The question is whether a Mauzadar is a person holding a civil post under the State within Art.311 of the Constitution. There is no formal definition of "post" and "civil post". The sense in which they are used in the Services Chapter of Part XIV of the Constitution is indicated by their context and setting. A civil post is distinguished in Art. 310 from a post connected with defence; it is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of the administration, an employment in a civil capacity under the Union or a State.See marginal notet of Art.311. In Art.311,a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State is mentioned separately, and a civil post means a post not connected with defence outside the regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. A person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State. See the marginal notes- to Arts. 309, 310 and 311. The heading and the subheading of Part XIV and Chapter I emphasise the element of service. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person holding a post under it. The existence of this relationship is indicated by the State's right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration. A relationship of master and servant
683
may be established by the presence of all or some of these indicia, in conjunction with other circumstances and it is a question of fact in each case whether there is such a relation between the State and the alleged holder of a post. In the context of Arts. 309, 310 and 311, a post denotes an office. A person who holds a civil post under a State holds "office" during the pleasure of the Governor of the State, except as expressly provided by the Constitution. See Art.
310. A post under the State is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office or a position to which a person is appointed and which may exist apart from and independently of the holder of the post. Article 310(2) contemplates that a post may be abolished-and a person holding a post may be required to vacate the post, and it emphasises the idea of a post existing apart from the holder of the post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a post. A post under the State means a post under the . administrative control of the State. The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the post.
Judged in this light, a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley is the holder of a civil post under the State. The State has the power and the right to select and appoint a Mauzadar and the power to suspend and dismiss him. He is a subordinate public servant working under the supervision and control of the Deputy Commissioner. He receives by way of remuneration a commission on his collections and sometimes a salary. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and him. He holds an office on the revenue side of the administration to which specific and onerous duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office which falls vacant on the death or removal of the incumbent and which is filled up by successive appointments. He is a responsible officer exercising delegated powers of Government. Mauzadars in the Assam Valley are appointed Revenue Officers and ex-officio Assistant Settlement Officers. Originally, a Mauzadar may have been a revenue farmer and an independent contractor. But having regard to the existing system of his recruitment, employment and functions, he is a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State.
Counsel for the State stressed the fact that normally a Mauzadar does not draw a salary. But a post outside the regularly constituted services need not necessarily carry "a definite rate of pay." The post of a Mauzadar carries with it a remuneration by way of a commission on collections of Government dues. Counsel stressed the fact that a Mauzadar is not a whole-time employee. But a post 684
outside the regularly constituted services may be a part- time employment. The conditions of service of a Mauzadar enable him to engage in other activities. In Venkata Swamy v. Superintendent of Post Offices(l), the Orissa High Court held, on a consideration of the relevant conditions of employment, that a temporary extra- departmental branch post-master was not a person holding a civil post, but the observation in that case that a part- time employee cannot be the holder of a civil post outside the regularly constituted services is too wide and cannot be supported. In Sher Singh v. State of Rajasthan(2), the Rajasthan High Court held that a chaudhari appointed under the Land Revenue Act of Bikaner is not entitled to the protection of Art. 311. The report of the case does not disclose the functions of the chaudhari and the regulations governing his employment. In Bindu Nath v. State of Assan(3), the Court found that the applicant was never appointed to the post of a Mauzadar, and no question of the protection of Art. 311 could arise in the circumstances. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
(1) A.I.R. 1957 Orissa, 112.
(2) I.L.R. [1956] 6 Rai. 335, 339-340.
(3) A.I.R. 1959 Assam. II S.
685
|
| For Latest Updates Always Visit http://satish24k.blogspot.com/ |
GDS Civil Servant - It is settled that EDAs are holders of civil post as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Superintendent of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma
Superintendent Of Post Offices ... vs P.K. Rajamma Etc. Etc on 22 April, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1677, 1977 SCR (3) 678
Bench: Gupta, A.C.
PETITIONER:
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P.K. RAJAMMA ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1977
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)
KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1677 1977 SCR (3) 678
1977 SCC (3) 94
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1981 SC 53 (15)
RF 1992 SC 573 (14,40)
ACT:
Constitution of India, Art. 311 (2)--Whether the post of extra Departmental Branch Postmasters/Sub Post- Masters/Delivery agents a "Civil Post" within the meaning of Art. 311(2)--Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964--Rule 2(b).
HEADNOTE:
The respondents in all these appeals are "extra depart- mental agents" within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct of Service) Rules, 1964 issued under the authority of the Government of India. They were either dismissed or removed from service during the period between January 1, 1966 and June 18, 1974, admittedly without complying with the provi- sions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The question in each case is whether the respondent held a "civil post" as contemplated in Art. 311(2) of the Constitution. The High Court of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh & Orissa held that the respondents held a civil post under the Union of India and the orders terminating their services in violation of Art. 31.1(2) of the Constitution were invalid. Dismissing the appeals the Court,
HELD: (1) An "extra departmental agent" held a "civil post" and his dismissal or removal would be invalid, if there was non-compliance with Art. 311 (2) of the Constitu- tion. [680 B-C. 682 E]
(2) An extra departmental agent is not a casual worker, but he holds a post under the administrative control of the State. It is apparent from the 1964 Rules that the em- ployment of an extra departmental agent is in a post which exists "apart from" the person who happens to fill it at any particular time. Though such a post is outside the regular civil service, there is no doubt it is a post under the State. [681 E-F]
State of Assam & Ors. v. Kanak Chandra Dutta [1967] 1 SCR 679 @ 682 applied.
(3) The 1964 rules make it clear that these extra- departmental agents work under the direct control and super- vision of the authority who obviously have the right to control the manner in which they must carry out their du- ties. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the relation- ship between the Postal Authorities and the extra-departmen- tal agents are of master and servant. [662 C-E] Venkataswamy v. Superintendent, Post Offices, AIR 1957 Orissa 112; V. Subbaravalu v. Superintendent of Post Offices, AIR 1961 Madras 166, held inapplicable.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C. As Nos. 1172, 1354, 1355 and 1751 of 1972.
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 27.9.1971 of the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 1339/70 W.A.No. 8/70, W.A. No. 420/69 and O.P. No. 862 of 1969 respectively.)
AND
Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1972
679
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 18.11.1971 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 5662/70).
AND
Civil Appeals Nos. 1015/73, 1865/74 and CA No. 506/76. (From the Judgments and Orders dated the 7-9-72, 22-7- 74, and 30-10.1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 4717/71, 3914/74 and 4213/75 respectively). AND
CA No. 1866 of 1973 and 1867/73.
(Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt. the 15.2.1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No. 2933 and 3385/71 respectively.) AND
Civil Appeal No. 1234 of 1974.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 18.10.1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.A. No. 360 of 1972).
AND
Civil Appeal Nos. 1300 and 1393 of 1976. (From the Judgment and Order dated the 5-12-1975 of the. Kerala High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 414 & 415 of 1975). AND
Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 1976.
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 10.3.1976 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No. 531/74).
Niren De, Attorney General of India in CAs 1171, 1354- 1355; V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. General in CAs 2275 and 1313 with B. Datta in CAs 1172, 1355 and 2275 and Girish Chandra, for the appellants in all the appeals. Vepa Sarathi, N. Sudhakaran and P.K. Pillai for respond- ents in CA 1172/72.
Vepa Sarathi (1354) K.M.K. Nair and Mrs. B. Krishnan for respondents in CAs 1354, 1751/72 and 1300 and 1393 of 1976. Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent in CA 1355. K. Jayaram and K. Ram Kumar for respondents in CAs 1866-67, 1015/73 and 1865 of 1974 and 506/76. Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna, for respondent in CA 2275/72. C.S. S Rao, for respondent in CA 1313/76.
680
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, 3.--The respondents in all these fourteen ap- peals, some of which are on certificate and some by special leave, are extra-departmental agents connected with the postal department. Six of these. appeals are from the Kerala High Court, seven from the Andhra Pradesh High Court and one from. the Orissa High Court. These respondents were either dismissed or removed from service during the period between January 1, 1966 and June 18, 1974, and admit- tedly the order of dismissal or removal was passed without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The question in each case is whether the respondent held a civil post as contemplated in Article 311 of the Constitution; if he did the dismissal or removal, as the case may be, would be unquestionably invalid for non- compliance with Article 311(2).
The conditions of service of the respondents are gov- erned by a body of rules called the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called the rules) issued under the authority of the Government of India. Rule 2(b) of the rules defining "Extra Departmental Agent" includes within the category, among others, Extra Departmental Sub Postmaster's, Extra Departmental Branch postmasters, Extra Departmental Delivery Agents, and several sections of class IV employees. Eleven of the respondents arc extra departmental branch postmas- ters, one is an extra departmental delivery agent, and two are class IV extra departmental employees. In all these cases the High Courts have found that the respondents held civil posts under the Union of India and the orders termi- nating their services in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution were invalid.
This Court in State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Dutta(1) has explained what a civil post is. In that case the respondent who was a Mauzadar in the Assam Valley was dismissed from service in disregard of the provi- sions of Article 311 (2). It was held that "having regard to the existing system of his recruitment, employment and functions", he was "a servant and a holder of a civil post under the State", and therefore entitled to the protection of Article 311(2). This Court observed: " .... a civil post means a post not connected with defence and outside the regu- lar civil services. A post is a service or employment ....... There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person holding a post under it. The exist- ence of this relationship is indicated by the State's right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration."
(1) [1967]1 S.C,R. 679 (682).
681
A post, it was explained, exists apart from the holder of the post. "A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a post. A post under the State means a post under the administrative control of the State. The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the post." Turning now to the rules by which the respondents were admittedly gov- erned, it appears that they contain elaborate provisions controlling the appointment, leave, termination of services, nature of penalties, procedure for imposing penalties and other matters relating to the conduct and service of these extra departmental agents. There is a schedule annexed to the rules naming the appointing authorities in respect of each category of employees. Rule 5 states that the employ- ees governed by these rules shall be entitled to such leave as may be determined by the Government from time to time and provides that if an employee fails to resume duty on the expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and granted to him or if an employee who is granted leave is absent from duty for any period exceeding the limit upto which he could have been granted leave he shall be removed from the service unless the Government decides otherwise in the exceptional circumstances of any particular case. The services of employees who had not put in more than three years' continu- ous service are liable to be terminated at any time under rule 6 for unsatisfactory work or for any administrative reason. The rules also indicate the nature of penalties which may be imposed on an employee and the procedure for imposing them. A right of appeal is provided against an order imposing any of the penalties on the employee. Various other conditions of service are also provided in these rules.
It is thus clear that an extra departmental agent is not a casual worker but he 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" the person who happens to fill it at any particular' time. 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 Dutta's case (supra) are clearly satisfied in the case of the extra departmental agents. For the appellants it is contended that the relationship between the postal authorities and the extra departmental agents is not of master and servant, but really of principal and agent. The difference between the relations of master and servant and principal and agent was pointed out by this Court in Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. v. The Gov- ernment of Hyderabad. (1) On page 401 of the report the following lines from Halsbury's Laws of England (Hailsham edition) Volume 1, at page 193, article 345, were quoted with approval in explaining the difference: (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 393.
682
"An agent is to be distinguished on the one hand from a servant, and on the other from an independent contractor. A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master, and is bound to conform to all reasonable orders given him in the course of his work, an independent contractor, on the other hand, is entirely independent of any control or interference and merely undertakes to produce a specified result, employing his own means to produce that result. An agent, though bound to exercise his authority in accordance with all lawful instructions which may be given to him from time to time by his principal, is not subject in its exercise to the direct control or supervision of the principal. An agent, as such is not a servant, but a servant is generally for some purposes his master's implied agent, the extent of the agency depending upon the duties or position of the servant."
The rules make it clear that these extra departmental agents work' under the direct control and supervision of the authorities who obviously have the right to control the manner in which they must carry out theft duties. There can be no doubt therefore that the relationship between the postal authorities and the extra departmental agents is one of master and servant. Reliance was placed on behalf of the appellants on two decisions, one of the Orissa High Court Venkata Swamy v. Superintendent, Post Offices(1) and the other of the Madras High Court V. Subbaravalu v. Superin- tendent of Post Offices.(2) The judgment in these cases were rendered before the elaborate rules governing the conduct and service of these extra departmental agents were brought into operation in 1964. We do not therefore think an examination of these two decisions will be relevant or useful for disposing of the appeals before us. The appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs: one set o[ hearing fee in respect of all the appeals except C.A. 1172 of 1972 C.A. 1751 of 1972 and C.A. 2275 of 1972 in which separate orders as to costs was made earlier. S.R. Appeals dismissed
(1) AIR 1957 Orissa 112.
(2) AIR 1961 Madras 166.
683
|
| For Latest Updates Always Visit http://satish24k.blogspot.com/ |
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
GDS Strike Result
 Revolutionary Greetings and Congratulations to all GDS comrades who have participated in the INDEFINITE STRIKE with strong determination and dedication for 7 days . The Strike was almost total in most of the circles. It was partial in a few circles because of confusion created by Anti-GDS elements and disruptive forces.
The GDS
leadership left no stone unturned for the success of the Strike. Apart from series of discussions with the
administration the leaders sought for the intervention of the MPs, Ministers to
bring pressure on the Government/Department.
Today the leadership with active leaders met Home Minister who is from
Maharastra, our All India president Com.D.N.Giri is also from the same
state/circle. Since Sri.Kapil sibal
minister(MOC) was totally busy today we could not meet him. However we have ensured that he had taken
sincere action in the matter. Some
senior MPs have spoken to Hon’ble MOC today on our Bonus issue, with positive
response.
In the above
background talks with the administration was held, with Director S/R and
DDG(est) at 3.30 pm. Meeting lasted for
about one hour in a congenial atmosphere. The demands viz.,Protection of TRCA, Bonus
and Health insurance(RSBY) received attention.
As regards other demands are it was agreed to consider them
sympathetically.
Thus, taking
all aspects into consideration it was decided to Call Off the STRIKE with
immediate effect. The Dte., orders are
also printed herein. However at last the
Secretary Madam remarked that the Department was considerate to the demands of
GDS.
Comrades, we once again extend revolutionary
Greetings to you for your swift action in making the Strike a historic one. That itself is the victory over the attacks
on you in various ways. Even though
Kerala did not take part in the struggle, West Bengal partially participated in
Strike, there was total struggle in all other circles. This shows the readiness of the GDS to fight
for the cause independently.
LONG LIVE GDS
UNITY, LONG LIVE AIPEDEU.
WORKERS’ UNITY
–ZINDABAD.
source:http://ruralpostalemployees.blogspot.in/
Key words: Indefinite GDS Postal Strike, Regularisation, Departmentalisation
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)