The GDS (Conduct & Employment) rules, 2001 are not statutory and were framed under the belief that the ED Agents are not civil servants within the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
It appears that till about the year 1935, there were no separate set of Rules to regulate the conduct and discipline of ED Agents. In that year the Director General, Post & Telegraphs department framed rules relating to appointments, penalties and appeals vide DG P&T Circular No.3 dated 16-04-1935.
In the year 1959, however, Extra Departmental Agents were declared as holders of Civil Posts within the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to that Article, statutory rules regulating their appointment and conditions were framed and promulgated on 25-07-1959 vide GSR No.890.
The Department of Posts since 1960 continues to hold the view that the Extra Departmental Agents are not holders of Civil Post even after the land mark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gokulananda Das’s case decided on 22-04-1977 wherein, it has been categorically held that Extra Departmental Agents are holders of Civil Post.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench rejected the argument of the department put forth before them that the ED Agents have been declared as holders of Civil Post for the purpose of protections and safe guard in Article 311 (2) and observed that :-
“WE FIND NO WARRANT FOR READING THE RESTRICTION IN TO THE DECLARATION OF LAW IN RAJAMMA’S CASE AND LIMITING IT TO ARTICLE – 311, THE DECLARATION IS THAT EXTRA DEPARTMENTAL AGENTS ARE HOLDERS OF CIVIL POST” – (O.A. No.584/95 decided on 23-01-1996)
The position has been further crystallized by the Supreme Court while holding that Extra Departmental Agents are not workmen attracting the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, it has been reiterated that ED Agents are Civil Servants regulated by these Conduct Rules” – (Civil Appeal No.3385-86 of 1966 decided on 02-02-1996)
The repeated attempt to read Article 311(2) in isolation is entirely misconceived and untenable.
========================================================================
It appears that till about the year 1935, there were no separate set of Rules to regulate the conduct and discipline of ED Agents. In that year the Director General, Post & Telegraphs department framed rules relating to appointments, penalties and appeals vide DG P&T Circular No.3 dated 16-04-1935.
In the year 1959, however, Extra Departmental Agents were declared as holders of Civil Posts within the purview of Article 309 of the Constitution. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to that Article, statutory rules regulating their appointment and conditions were framed and promulgated on 25-07-1959 vide GSR No.890.
The Department of Posts since 1960 continues to hold the view that the Extra Departmental Agents are not holders of Civil Post even after the land mark judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gokulananda Das’s case decided on 22-04-1977 wherein, it has been categorically held that Extra Departmental Agents are holders of Civil Post.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench rejected the argument of the department put forth before them that the ED Agents have been declared as holders of Civil Post for the purpose of protections and safe guard in Article 311 (2) and observed that :-
“WE FIND NO WARRANT FOR READING THE RESTRICTION IN TO THE DECLARATION OF LAW IN RAJAMMA’S CASE AND LIMITING IT TO ARTICLE – 311, THE DECLARATION IS THAT EXTRA DEPARTMENTAL AGENTS ARE HOLDERS OF CIVIL POST” – (O.A. No.584/95 decided on 23-01-1996)
The position has been further crystallized by the Supreme Court while holding that Extra Departmental Agents are not workmen attracting the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, it has been reiterated that ED Agents are Civil Servants regulated by these Conduct Rules” – (Civil Appeal No.3385-86 of 1966 decided on 02-02-1996)
The repeated attempt to read Article 311(2) in isolation is entirely misconceived and untenable.
========================================================================
