LexSUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES ETC. ETC. versus P. K. RAJAMMA ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
c
D
E
F
G
678
SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES ETC. ETC.
v.
P. K. RAJAMMA ETC. ETC.
April 22, 1977
[M. H. BEG, C.J., A. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J
Constitution of India, Art. 311(2)-Whelher the post of extra Departmental
Branch Postmasters/ Sub Post-Masters/ Delivery agents a "Civil Post" within 1he
nleaning of Art. 311(2)-Posts and Telegraphs
Extra-Departmental
Agenis
(Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964--Rule 2(b).
The respondents in all these appeals are "extra departmental 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 with-
out complying with the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the
Constitution. The
question in each case is whether the respondent held a "civil ,post" as contem-
plated 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 dis-
missal or removal would be invalid, if there was non-compliance with Art. 311(2)
of the Constitution.
f680 B-C. 682 El
(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 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 service, there is no doubt it is a
post under the State. [681 E-F]
·
State of Assam & Ors. v. Kanak Chandra Dutta [1967] I SCR 679 @ 682
applied.
(3) The 1964 rules make it clear that these extra-departmental agents work
under the direct control and supervision of the authority who obviously have the
right to control the manner in which they must carry out their duties.
There
can be no doubt, therefore, that the relationship between the Postal Authoritits
and the extra-departmental agents are of master and S<>rvant.
(662 C-EJ
VenkaJaswanzy v. Superintendent, Post Offices, AIR 1957 Orissa
112; V.
Subbaravalu v. Superintendent of Post Offices, AIR 1961
Madras 166, l1el<l
inapplicable.
C!vIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: c. As Nos. 1172, 1354, 1355
1-
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.
H
8/70, W.A. No. 420/69 and O.P. No. 862 of 1969 respectively.)
AND
Civil Appehl No. 2275 of 1972
SUPDT. POST OFFICES v. P. K. RA.TAMMA (Gupta, J.)
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. 1015173, 1865/74 and CA No. 506/76.
A
(From the Judgments and Orders dated the 7-9-72, 22-7-74, and
B
30-10.1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ P·etitions Nos.
4717171, 3914/74 and 4213/75 respectively).
AND
CA No. 1866 of 1973 and 1867 /73.
(Appeais by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dt.
the
15.2.1972 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition
No. c
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
D
1972).
AND
Civil Appeal Nos. 1300 and 1393 of 197 6.
(From the Judgment and Order dated the 5-12-1975 of the Kerala
High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 414 & 415 of 1975).
E
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. ('. Raman, Addi. 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.
F
I
Vepa Sarathi, N. Sudhakaran and P. K. Pillai for respondents in
CA 1172/72.
G
Vepa Sarathi (1354) K. M. K. Nair and Mrs. B. Krishnan for res-
pondents in CAs 1354, 1751/72 and 1300 and 1393 of 1976.
Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent in CA 1355.
K. laExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.