A VICTORY OVER FABRICATED CHARGE FRAME AGAINST THE POOR GDS BY THE MIGHTY DELEGATED POWER OF SOME POSTAL ADMINISTRATIONS BEFORE 8 YEARS, AND NOT RELUCTANT TO OPINE ,ALSO AN EXAMPLE FOR HUNDREDS OF VICTIMS(ENTIRE SECTION NOT COMING TO LIGHT) , STILL STRIVING IF TAKEN A KEEN LOOK IN THE COUNTRY .

17. Applying the above principles to the present case, the violation of the principle is quite apparent in this case as the respondent No. 4 to whom the applicant was alleged to have misbehaved, had decided to function as the 13 disciplinary authority against the applicant instead of referring the matter to the next higher authority for taking an appropriate decision in the matter. Here the disciplinary authority himself had complained of being misbehaved by the applicant, which was included as one of the charges. 18. As a result, we have no hesitation to allow the OA by quashing the charge-sheet dated 9.4.2008 (Annexure-A/1). As a consequence, the punishment order dated 30.8.2011 (A/8), order dated 27.6.2012 of the appellate authority (Annexure-A/11) and the order dated 22.5.2013 (A/13) of the revisionary authority are also set aside and quashed. The applicant is to be reinstated in his engagement as GDS with all consequential benefits including the TRCA for the period he was out of the engagement due to the order of dismissal. The respondents will be at liberty to initiate the proceedings against the applicant afresh in accordance with law. The OA is allowed accordingly with no order as to cost. (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) (GOKUL CHANDRA PATI) MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A) I.Nath

PLI  PREMIUM CAN BE COLLECTED THROUGH BO

CLAIM YOUR LEGITIMATE DUE 

A FAVOURABLE ORDER FOR THE GDSs
OA 749/2015 with 2 connected OAs



the law in this regard that the Tribunal should not venture into
deciding pay scales and service conditions as these are within the
domain of the executive and is best left to be decided on the basis of
recommendation of expert bodies, such as, Pay Commissions
[Union of India & Another Vs. P.V. Hariharan and Another, 1997
SCC (L&S) 838 and Union of India Vs. Makhan Chand Roy, AIR
1997 SC 2391]. This prayer is, therefore, rejected.
20. To summarise, we dispose of the O.As. with the following
directions to the respondents:

(a) For all Gramin Dak Sevaks, who have been absorbed as regular Group ‘D’ staff, the period spent as Gramin Dak Sevak will be counted in toto for the purpose of pensionary benefits.
(b) Pension will be granted under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 to all Gramin Dak Sevaks, who retire as Gramin Dak Sevak without absorption as regular Group ‘D’ staff, but the period to be counted for the purpose of pension will be 5/8th of the period spent as Gramin Dak Sevak. Rule 6 will accordingly be amended.

(c) The Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules,
2011 are held to be valid except Rule 6, as stated above.
336
OA 749/2015 with 2 connected OAs

(d) The claim of Gramin Dak Sevaks for parity with regular
employees regarding pay and allowances and other benefits
available to regular employees, stands rejected.
21. With the above directions, all the three O.As. stand disposed
of. However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.



(P.K. BASU)                               (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)  Member (A)                                     Member (J)