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
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