Hon.Ashok Pal Singh,J.
(Delivered by Hon.Rakesh Tiwari,J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The facts of this case are that on 15.12.1961 Sri Jagdish Prasad, the father of the petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (in short 'EDMC') at village and Post Office Jamalpur, District Banda. In the year 1997 Sri Jagdish Prasad fell seriously ill and was sanctioned medical leave. In May, 1997 the father moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the ground that he was incapacitated due to his physical infirmity. The request of Jagdish Prasad was accepted by the department and the petitioner was appointed as EDMC at village and post office Jamalpur, Banda where he worked during the periods between (i) 24.11.1997 to 31.12.1998 (ii) 3.8.1999 to 31.12.1999 and (iii) 29.1.2000 to 11.10.2000. After the aforesaid spells of working the petitioner was not permitted to work. He then filed Original Application No.389 of 2001, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) with a prayer for command to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue him as Post man in the village he was working and to pay him his salary with arrears of pay treating him to be a permanent employee.
The CAT, Allahabad vide its judgment and order dated 8.5.2002 allowed the O.A. No.389 of 2001 relying upon a Full Bench decision of Ernaculam Tribunal reported in 2002(1) ATC 205 observed that 'the Full Bench after detailed consideration had answered both the questions in affirmative and held that circular letter dated 29.5.1992 denying the benefit of scheme of employment assistance on compassionate ground to near relative of the E.D. Agents discharged pre-maturely as medically invalidated was arbitrary and unreasonable and that in view of the aforesaid judgment the applicant was entitled for relief'.
The Tribunal while allowing the O.A. also directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as EDMC on compassionate ground expeditiously, and in any case within a period of three months from the date a copy of the order was filed by him before the department.
The Union of India and other respondents of O.A. No.389 of 2001 challenged the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.5.2002, passed by the Tribunal by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition NO.28208 of 2002 wherein the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 26.8.2004 directed the present petitioner (contesting respondent in Writ Petition No.28208 of 2002) to file a representation before the Post Master General, Kanpur Region, Kanpur through Superintendent of Post Offices, Banda Division, Banda and further directed that in case representation is filed, it shall be decided by the Post Master General by a speaking order if possible within three months from the date of receipt of the representation.
Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order dated 26.8.2004 the petitioner moved a detailed representation before the Post Master General, Kanpur Region,Kanpur which was rejected by him vide order dated 18.2.2005 holding that in view of the Government order dated 16.3.2001 there was no scope to extend the scheme of compassionate appointment to E.D. Agent, who are prematurely retired or discharged on medical grounds.
Aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2005 the petitioner filed OA no.835 of 2006 before the Tribunal which was dismissed by it vide impugned judgment and order dated 5.12.2007. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the correctness of the order dated 5.12.2007 passed by the Tribunal.
The contention of learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner was neither appointed on the post of EDMC at Jamalpur Branch Post Office nor he worked on the said post continuously as permanent employee. Admittedly he has worked in a stop gap arrangement only as a substitute and a substitute has no legal right to claim regular appointment, and salary of permanent employee. It is stated that the petitioner has not filed any document in respect of his appointment in the department to the effect that his appointment was permanent; that the orders dated 18.02.2005 passed by Post Master General, Kanpur and 05.12.2007 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal have been passed after careful consideration of record and affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and these impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record it is apparent that petition was at the most a substitute worker who worked in the post office for three different and distinct spells. Neither his period of working was permanent nor continuous.
There is nothing on the record to show that his appointment as EDMC was permanent. His working in stop gap arrangement does not in the facts and circumstances of the case vests him with any legal right to be treated at par with permanent employee of the department for the payment of alleged arrears of salary as claimed by him for the period he did not work between the aforesaid three spells. Payment in a pay scale connotes that an employee is a permanent employee of the department having recruited in accordance with Recruitment Rules against permanent vacancy. An EDMC being an "Extra Departmental Employee" recruited under a different set of Rules cannot be treated as permanent employee on compassionate ground and as such the Court cannot extend the scheme of compassionate appointment to dependents of E.D. Agent who are retired permanently from service or discharged on medical grounds.
There is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the approach of the Tribunal nor in the conclusions in the impugned orders which are liable to be upheld.
For all the reasons stated above the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby accordingly dismissed.
No orders as to costs.
Dated:20.4.2012 AKJ