Welcome to AIGDSU CHQ Website, AIPEDEU NOMENCLATURE CHANGED AS AIGDSU

Monday, March 30, 2015

Declaration of Holiday on 14th April, 2015- Birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar


Declaration of Holiday on 14th April, 2015- Birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
Government of India
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi
Dated the 19th March, 2015.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Declaration of Holiday on 14th April, 2015- Birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
It has been decided to declare Tuesday, the 14th April 2015, as a Closed Holiday on account of the birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, for all Central Government Offices including Industrial Establishments throughout India.
2. The above holiday is also being notified in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881).
3. All Ministries/ Departments of Government of India may bring the above decision to the notice of all concerned.
Sd/-
(Mrs.K.Kipgen)
Director(JCA)


Saturday, March 28, 2015

Humble request for treating the period of strike which started on 10.3.2015 and was called off on 20.03.2015.

Tele-Fax: 23697701
ALL INDIA GRAMIN DAK SEVAKS UNION (AIGDSU)
(Central Head Quarter)
First Floor, Post Office Building, Padamnagar, Delhi 110007
President:                       M. Rajangam
General Secretary           S.S. Mahadevaiah
Letter No. GDS/73 /01/2015                               Dated: 27/03/2015

To

Sri Ravi Shankar Prasad,
Honble Minister for Communications & IT
Government of India,
Sanchar Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001

Subject:- Humble request for treating the period of strike which started on    
              10.3.2015 and was called off on 20.03.2015.

Respected Sir,

        Most respectfully we on behalf of 2.60 lacs of Gramin Dak Sevaks, the humble servants of the Gramin population urge upon you to consider the following submission in a head-of-family manner and issue necessary orders:

1.     That the Department of Posts family consists of the Hon’ble Minister, officers of the Department, Departmental employees and Gramin Dak Sevaks. The Gramin Dak Sevaks are like the youngest members of the family and need to be treated like that.

2.     That in an attempt to remind the Department of Posts of its commitment signed on 21.2.2014 and to honour the commitment so that the Government may not be accessed of dishonoring the written commitment the GDS employees staged a strike, a simple strike peaceful and calm.

3.     That there was no subpages intimidation or violence. This was a simple way of demanding justified from the elders of the department. There was nothing to threaten the Government in any way. It was the most peaceful show the desire to get what was promised.

4.     That the Gramin Dak Sevaks have cleared the pending work effactively and there has been no drayage done. All work is being done efficiently and in an atmosphere of peace and tranquility.

That sweet labour relations are always most productive. To ensure this, it is necessary to erase the scar that has occurred to the Gramin Dak Sevaks the smallest is the family.


We, therefore, very humbly request your honour to issue orders that the period of strike be treated as aid leave. This will not cost the Government any extra expenditure as otherwise the sevaks will avail the paid leave. On the other hand this will promote even better and tranquil labour relation.

Hope you will kindly consider the submission dispassionately and issue orders as requested.

        With profound regards,

                                                                             Yours faithfully


(S.S. Mahadevaiah)
 General Secretary





Friday, March 27, 2015

Request for honouring the judgement of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh-Reg.


Tele-Fax: 23697701
ALL INDIA GRAMIN DAK SEVAKS UNION (AIGDSU)
(Central Head Quarter)
First Floor, Post Office Building, Padamnagar, Delhi 110007
President:                       M. Rajangam
General Secretary         S.S. Mahadevaiah
Letter No. GDS/76 /01/2015                                Dated: 23/03/2015

To

The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi-110001

Subject:-     Request for honouring the judgement of High Court of
                     Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh-Reg.

 Madam,

        This union is herewith forwarding the judgement of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh for your kind consideration and favourble action.

        Suitable instructions may be issued to the competent authority for the implementation of the cited judgement and requesting to extend the judgement to all GDS.  

        With regards
                                                                           Yours faithfully,
                                                                           

                                                                         (S.S. Mahadevaiah)
                                                                           General Secretary


L.P.A. No.406 of 2009                                                                                                  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(1)
L.P.A. No.406 of 2009 (O&M).
Decided on:-February 28, 2014.

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

…….........Appellant.
Versus
Darshan Ram (through LRs) and others                                .........Respondents.
(2)
L.P.A. No.407 of 2009 (O&M).
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridkot Division, Faridkot.

….........Appellant.
Versus
Naib Singh and others                                                        .........Respondents.
(3)
L.P.A. No.408 of 2009 (O&M).

Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Faridkot Division, Faridkot.
.........Appellant.
Versus
Bimla Devi and others                                                       .........Respondents.
L.P.A. No.406 of 2009

(4)
L.P.A. No.618 of 2009 (O&M).
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshiarpur Division, Hoshiarpur.
.........Appellant.
Versus Avtar Singh and others                                               .........Respondents.
(5)
L.P.A. No.619 of 2009 (O&M).
Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.
.........Appellant.
Versus
Santokh Singh and others                                                     .........Respondents.

CORAM:     Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajive Bhalla
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon.

*****
Argued by:- Mr. Namit Kumar, Advocate
for the appellant in all the appeals.

Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for LRs of
respondent No.1 in the first appeal and for respondent No.1
in the other appeals.

Mrs. Kulwant Kaur Kahlon, Senior Panel Counsel with
Mr. Amrit Pal Singh Kahlon, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

Five Letters Patent Appeals bearing Nos.406, 407, 408, 618 and 619 of 2009 arising out of adjudication of Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos.3450, 3452, 3449 (decided on 4.3.2009), 5290 and 5291 of 2009 (decided on 1.4.2009) respectively by the learned Single Judge for adjudication are being taken up together as these are inter-connected.

2.     The only issue to be adjudicated in these appeals is as to whether Extra Departmental staff of the Post Offices earlier governed by the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (for short, the Rules of 1964) and now governed by the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 (for short, the Rules of 2001) is covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the Gratuity Act) and thus, is entitled for payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act by the employer?

3.     Private respondents in these appeals having superannuated from their respective posts (which they were manning), were paid ex-gratia gratuity @ half month’s basic allowance as drawn by them immediately before laying down their offices for each completed year of service, subject to a maximum of Rs.18,000/- or 16½ months basic allowance last drawn, whichever is less. In addition to payment of this ex-gratia gratuity, a severance allowance with a maximum limit of Rs.30,000/- was also paid.

4.     Having come to know that they have not been paid their gratuity in terms of the Gratuity Act, the private respondents had approached the Controlling Authority-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh-respondent No.2 (hereinafter called the Controlling Authority) claiming gratuity under the Gratuity Act. Condoning the delay in filing of their such claims, the Controlling Authority deciding the matter in favour of the employees found that claim of the employees had merit and L.P.A. No.406 of 2009 -4- consequently, additional payment with 10% interest, was ordered in each case.

5.     Aggrieved with the said orders of the Controlling Authority passed on different dates in case of different claim petitions of the superannuated employees, the employer had preferred separate appeals before the Appellate Authority-cum-Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Chandigarh-respondent No.3 (hereinafter called the Appellate Authority). Rejecting plea of the employer that the employees were 'civil servants' and thus, were not covered under the Act, in all these cases, orders of the Controlling Authority were upheld. In these appeals, affirmation of the said orders of the Appellate Authority by Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court, is under challenge.

6.     For convenience and clarity, facts have been taken from LPA No.406 of 2009.

7.     Claim of the appellant is that employee Darshan Ram, now represented by his legal representatives, was a civil servant and thus, was outside the purview of the Gratuity Act and could not have been granted benefit of gratuity under the said Act. Liability to pay additional amount of gratuity as ordered by respondent Nos.2 and 3 over and above the ex-gratia gratuity earlier paid by them, is questioned.

8.     Citing Union of India and others v. Kameshwar Parsad (1977) 11 SCC 650, it is contended by the counsel for the appellant that holder of a civil post is not entitled to payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act and thus, the private respondents are not entitled for additional payment under the Gratuity Act, as was ordered by the Controlling Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority. It is claimed that affirmation of these orders by the learned Single Bench of this Court is also against law.

9.     It is alleged that all retrial benefits of the retiree Darshan Ram having been already paid, nothing more is due towards him and the Gratuity Act being not applicable, no further liability of the appellant exists.

10.    Countering this version, claim of the private respondents is that neither Darshan Ram was holding a civil post nor was he a civil servant and thus, he having died, his legal representatives are entitled to the benefit under the Gratuity Act.

11.    Per contra, contention of the private respondents is that merely because some protection in matters of departmental enquiries was available to Darshan Ram and to other equally placed employees with him at par with incumbents of civil posts, they were not holding civil posts and thus, cannot be denied applicability of the Gratuity Act to them since it is a beneficial social security legislation for the employees.

12.    Hearing has been provided to the learned counsel for the parties while going through the paper books.

13.    To adjudicate the controversy between the parties, definition of an employee as provided in Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act is reproduced as below:


“2. Definitions.
(a)    x               x               x
(b)    x               x               x
(c)    x               x               x
(d)    x               x               x
(e)    “employee” means any person (other than an apprentice) employed on wages, in any establishment, factory, mine, oilfield, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under the Central Government of a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of gratuity.”

14.    It is a conceded fact that Darshan Ram (now deceased and represented by his legal representatives) at the time of his superannuation was governed by the Rules of 2001 which Rules were replaced by the Rules of 1964. As per Rule 3(c) of the Rules of 2001, meaning of Gramin Dak Sevak has been given, as under:


3. Definitions.
(a)    x               x               x
(b)    x               x               x
(c) “Gramin Dak Sevak” means –
(i) a Gramin Dak Sevak Sub-Postmaster;
(ii) a Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster;
(iii) a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer;
(iv) a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier;
(v) a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer;
(vi) a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Messenger;
(vii) a Gramin Dak Sevak Mailman;
(viii) a Gramin Dak Sevak Stamp Vendor.

15.    Similarly, Sevak as per Rule 3(i) of the Rules of 2001 means as under: 3. Definitions. (i) “Sevak” means a person working as a Gramin Dak Sevak.

16.    Note II appended to Rule 3 of the Rules of 2001 is of great significance. In particular clauses (v) and (vi) of the Note II clinch the issue. For ready reference, these clauses are reproduced hereunder:

Note II      (i)     x       x       x
(ii)    x       x       x
(iii)   x       x       x
(iv)   x       x       x
(v)    A Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union;

(vi)   A Sevak shall not claim to be at par with the servant of the Government.

(vii)   x       x       x
(viii) x       x       x

17.    Clause (v) of Note II appended to Rule 3 of the Rules of 2001 (supra) specifically postulates that such Sevak is not a member of Civil Service of the Union and thus, clearly does not become a civil servant.

18.    Clause (vi) of Note II appended to Rule 3 of the Rules of 2001 (supra) makes the position even further clear as the Sevak is debarred from seeking parity with the holders of civil posts of the Government.

19.    When it is established from the very Rules applicable to employee Darshan Ram that he was neither holder of a civil post nor even could claim parity in any matter with the servants of the Government, he was thus very well covered under the definition of an employee under the Gratuity Act and thus, was entitled to payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, notwithstanding payment of ex-gratia gratuity and severance allowance made to him earlier under the Rules applicable to him. By no means, payment of ex-gratia gratuity or severance allowance is comparable to the payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act or would debar him from claiming gratuity under the Gratuity Act.

20.    In the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has taken note of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case Senior Superintendent of Post Offices v. Smt. Sham Dulari & others (CWP No.7576 of 2006) decided on 18.5.2006 whereby payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act was allowed to similarly situated employees as are the private respondents in the appeals in hand. Decision of the Division Bench judgment of this Court was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant-employer before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India though there, the question of law was left open.

21.    Counsel for the appellant citing Union of India and others v. Kameshwar Parsad (ibid) has urged that the respondents were holding posts under the Central Government and thus, were not entitled to the benefits under the Gratuity Act. In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had considered the aspect of applicability of status of such employees viz. a viz. departmental proceedings only and had held that EDA employees were entitled to protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If the private respondents have been held entitled to the protective umbrella of Article 311 of the Constitution of India in matters of departmental action against them, as is available to civil servants, ipso facto, it would not mean that they are holding civil posts and thus, are disentitled for the benefit of payment of gratuity under the Gratuity Act. The authority Union of India and others v. Kameshwar Parsad (supra) was also considered in the Division Bench judgment of this Court which has been discussed earlier.

22.    Viewed from another angle, as per scheme of the Gratuity Act, this statute is not applicable to cases where any other rule or statute is more beneficial than the Gratuity Act. By now, it is evident that the rules applicable to the private respondents were not more beneficial than the Gratuity Act, as even after payment of ex-gratia gratuity to them huge amount is payable to them under the Gratuity Act. In E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. v. G. Omkar Murthy 2001 (4) SCC 68 (Supreme Court), it was further held that more beneficial enactment is to be made applicable interalia in matters of payment of gratuity. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Dharam Prakash Sharma 1998 (7) SCC 221 (Supreme Court), it was further held that employees of the Municipal Corporation are entitled to payment of gratuity notwithstanding provision of payment of retrial benefits to them under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 wherein there was provision for payment of pension as well as gratuity to the employees of Municipal Corporation, Delhi.

23.    From the totality of facts and circumstances, nothing militating against the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge as also orders of the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority could be mustered by the appellant. The five appeals being without any merit are, consequently, dismissed.

(Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon)
Judge


(Rajive Bhalla)
        Judge
February 28, 2014
'Yag Dutt'

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes



Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Historic Indefinite strike of the GDS employees and further developments.

CHQ Circular  Historic Indefinite strike  of the GDS employees and further developments.



www.rpehq.com                                                                              Tele-Fax: 23697701
ALL INDIA GRAMIN DAK SEVAKS UNION (CHQ)
First Floor, Post Office Building, Padamnagar, Delhi 110007
No.GDS/CHQ/1/5/2015                        Dated 23-03-2015

To

All Circles/Divisional/ Branch Secretaries of All India GraminDakSevaks Union All India Office Bearers….

Subject:-  Historic Indefinite strike  of the GDS employees and further developments.

Dear Comrades,

     Hats off and militant salutations for the heroic struggle Our members have fought which forced the administration to see the reality. We just be failing in our duty if we do not extend our hearty congratulations to those comrades belonging to other unions who actively participated in the strike. We also extend our heartiest thanks to several members of parliament who fought our case in the house while we were fighting in the field. The media in the states also deserves our thanks for highlighting our struggle prominently though we did not get that support of the media at Delhi.

Comrades, the occasion for a strike arise because the administration had done enough spade work towards appointing an GDS committee under a retired bureaucrat. They had to revert. Hence we have rightly hit before damage could be done to 2.60 Lakhs GDS employees by appointment of aNatraja Murthy like committee. The administration played all tactics to thwart our struggle again. A reference to the government to include our issues in the terms of reference of the 7th pay commission was a calculated step to mislead the members and also other agencies. We are really proud of our heroic comrades that they refused to fall into the trap. Comrades the administration under took another tactics to mislead our comrades at circle, divisional and branch formations where they miserably failed. The misgivings of the administration that GDS employees cannot wage a sustained fight has been proved entirely wrong by brave comrades. We really are running short of words to thank the Comrades.

Comrades, the assistant labour commissioner began conciliation proceedings and finally the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) had to step in. The CHQ was ably represented by Comrade S.S.Mahadevaiah General Secretary, Com. B.V.Rao Assistant General Secretary, Com. Lakhwinder Pal Sing Treasurer, Com. C.B. Tiwari AGS and CS U.P., Com. R.P. Diwakar AGS, Com. Vijay Sharma CS Haryana. The department tried to hoodwink us and failed again.



On 19-3-2015 following the deliberations, the Chief Labour Commissioner (C) recorded the following minutes which is self explanatory.

They (The Administration) also submitted that they have already referred the matter to the department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance to consider their issue for inclusion the terms and reference to the 7th CPC. In case the government does not include GDS wage structure and service conditions in terms and reference of the 7th CPC, The Department of Posts will examine the issue of constitution of the committee and consider the suggestions of the union in this regard.

The CLC then requested us to call off the strike and also requested the Department to initiate negotiations on other issues.

We accordingly called off the strike honouring the request of the CLC (C) and believing the offer of the Department on 20-3-2015. The full minutes of the minutes of the meeting with the CLC (C) signed by the CLC (C), the administration and the union is put on our website.

MEETING WITH POSTAL DEPARTMENT
  Two hours meeting was held on 23.03.2015 to discuss and decide the charter of demands in D.G. office. The meeting was started at 3-30 PM and ended at 5-30PM. Discussions were held in congenial atmosphere.

 Sri Sekhar Kumar Sinha, member (HRD), Smt. Anju Nigam, Deputy Director General (SR and Legal) and Sri. Arun Malik, Director (SR & Legal) attended the meeting. Com. S.S.Mahadevaiah, General Secretary, Com. B.V.Rao Asst. General Secretary, Com. Lakhwinder Pal Singh, Treasurer, Com. Ram Singh, Circle President, M.P., attended from union side.

We discussed at length on charter of demands and conveyed our views to the department for the consideration.

The minutes of the meeting are herewith enclosed.
Comrades, we fought in right time to put the pressue on the department. Our struggle is continuing for ever for the betterment of GDS employees. Organize and strengthen our union. CHQ requests all to convene meetings at all levels to review the indefinite strike to overcome weakness. 
Comrades we again bow our heads in salutations before the steal like unity under strong will of our comrades.

Red salute to all. 
                                                                             Yours faithfully


                                                                               (S.S.Mahadevaiah)
                                                                               General Secretary