CHAPTER IEXTRA DEPARTMENTAL (GDS) SYSTEM IS ANANACHRONISM - SCRAP E.D SYSTEM.
1 They are Extraneous not Extras.
1-1.1 The Colonial British rulers with a view to spread over their commercialactivities by communication network provided postal services to rural areasvirtually on no cost basis by introducing the Agency System of E.D.
employees
. The system of E D Services in the Indian Postal Departmentdates prior to 1866, the manual of which year makes a mention of thesystem.1-1.2 As per the report contained in 'Outline of Postal History and Practice’released by Mr. Lvie. G.J. Hamielton in the year 1910, the EDAs weretermed as 'extraneous agents’, which were confined to Branch Postmasterclass only. It was only in 1926 that the ED system was extended to includeED runners & Extra Departmental delivery agents.1-1.3 It was only after 1931 that on the basis of the Jahangir committee report thatemployment of ED agents on a larger scale was resorted to and the systemwhich was until then confined to branch offices was extended to sub officesand small combined offices. Consequently the categories of ED Sorter,Stamp Vendor, Mail Peon, Letter Box Peon, Packer, Messenger etc wereintroduced.1-1.4 The E D System was utilised to serve the interior and inaccessible cornersof the country and subsequently expanded to the rural areas where full timepost office is not justified. The E D System is a peculiar feature of the PostalDepartment and it is not comparable with any other part time nature ofduties performed in any other Central Government Departments.
2
2. Observations by Pay Commissions
1-2.1 The First Central Pay Commission was of the considered view that the EDAgents fell within their purview. The Second and Third Pay Commissionsexcluded them from consideration mainly on the grounds that the Dept of Posthave treated them as agents and a class apart from the regular departmentalemployees.1-2.2 The Third Pay Commission on that plea of the Department, specifically toldthat the ED Agents were not holders of Civil Posts. However the FourthCentral Pay Commission did not agree with that perception. It was observedby the Fourth Pay Commission that it was beyond controversy and that EDAgents were holders of Civil Posts.1-2.3 Despite these facts, the E D
employees
are still kept outside the stream of theDepartment by categorising them as agents. Eventhough the ED agents onthe one hand and the regular postal employees on the other may beperforming the same and similar comparable postal work, the GDS (ED) aredenied the service conditions which are available to the regular postalemployees thus absolving of any liability such as payment of due andadequate salary, social security benefits like pension, uniforms, medical etc.
3. ED Agents are Holders of Civil Posts
1-3.1 Our foremost contention is " It is a misnomer to describe the service asagency or sevak system." When the postal department is directly employingthe ED officials, there is no place for the agent in the department. Thedepartment should have taken a decision by this time to include them in thestream of regular departmental service and extend proportionate benefits onpar with the departmental employees.1-3.2 The E.D. employee does all the work that is done by the departmentalemployee and he is also deemed as a holder of civil post. There is no groundor rationale or whatsoever to term them as agents except to deprive them ofthe benefits to which the departmental employees are entitled. The Supreme
3
Court has also held that the ED agents are holders of Civil post under thestate even though the posts are outside the regular civil service.1-3.3 Having regard to the principle of master and servant subsisting between thepostal department and extra departmental staff, according to the judgmentcited in
Para Supra
, they are regarded as holders of civil posts but outside theregular civil service. Consequently, they enjoy the privilege conferred by theprovisions of article 311(2) of the Constitution; they should have beendepartmentalised by adopting various methods or extending new services andincrease their work load justifying for the departmentalisation.
4.
Landmark Judgments of the Apex Court
1-4.1 It will also be very pertinent to refer to certain verdicts of the Supreme Courtabout the employment of casual labour, contract labour etc. in the landmark judgments, the court directed the Government.i) To grant Temporary Status as Group D employees to the casual labourerwho has completed three years of service and extend all benefits on parwith the departmental employees.ii) The contract labourer employed by the Railways and Electricity Board,Tamilnadu who agitated before the Apex courts have been thebeneficiaries of the verdicts that they must also be absorbed as regularemployees of their respective department.iii) The canteen employees have also been treated as departmentalemployees on the basis of Apex court verdict.1-4.2 The Government and the political parties have been profusely proclaimingthat the rural population must be provided with all facilities irrespective of thecost which must be borne by the Government for rural development.Unfortunately the same has not been reflected in the decisions taken by theGovernment. The Government should not deny the services to the rural areason the plea of cost. We therefore propose the Departmentalisation of ED
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
