Existing Gramin Dak Sevaks are eligible for appointment against vacancies within the entire recruiting unit.

The Applicant was substantively appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDSMD-I) on January 12, 1998

Despite this designation, he served as a GDS Branch Postmaster (GDSBPM) for 19 out of his 24 years of service and has been working as the GDSBPM at Mahura BO on a temporary arrangement since August 8, 2018

On May 2, 2022, the Respondents issued a notification to fill the GDSBPM Mahura post via direct recruitment

The Applicant sought permanent absorption in said post, challenging Para X of the Office Memorandum (OM) dated July 15, 2021, which restricted inter-category transfers based on Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) slabs—effectively preventing an Assistant Branch Postmaster (ABPM) at TRCA Level-1 from transferring to a GDSBPM post

The Respondents maintained that the Applicant was ineligible for the transfer under the existing policy framework and that the recruitment process for the post had already commenced

1. Whether the provision in the OM dated July 15, 2021, restricting GDS transfers based on TRCA slabs, is irrational or illegal

2. Whether the Applicant is entitled to be considered for permanent absorption or transfer to the post of GDSBPM, Mahura BO, based on his extensive experience in that role and existing legal precedents

The court primarily considered the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020, and the Postal Department's OM dated July 15, 2021, regarding transfer policies

It relied on the constitutional principles of Articles 14 and 16 concerning non-arbitrariness in public employment

Crucially, the Tribunal applied the precedent set by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in Achyuta Kumar Pradhan v. UOI (OJC No. 835 of 1999), which interpreted Director General of Posts letters dated September 12, 1988, and August 11, 1994.

This precedent established that an existing GDS (formerly EDA) can be appointed to a vacant post within the same "recruiting unit" provided they are suitable and fulfill required conditions

The Tribunal analyzed the Applicant’s grievance against the Respondents' refusal to transfer/absorb him due to TRCA slab restrictions.

While the Respondents argued that the OM dated July 15, 2021, was a matter of policy designed for administrative interest, the Tribunal found that similar restrictive interpretations had been previously overturned.

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa had expanded the "zone of consideration" for GDS transfers from a specific "place" to the entire "recruiting unit"

The Tribunal reasoned that since the High Court's ruling in Achyuta Kumar Pradhan is binding, the Respondents cannot summarily reject a transfer request based on narrow TRCA categorizations if the candidate is otherwise qualified and belongs to the same recruiting unit

The court highlighted that the Applicant had already rendered nearly two decades of service as a BPM, demonstrating suitability for the role regardless of his substantive designation as GDSMD

It held that the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa is binding and that the Respondents must reconsider the Applicant's prayer for absorption or transfer to the post of GDSBPM, Mahura BO

The Respondents were directed to issue a well-reasoned speaking order within 90 days of receipt of the judgment, taking into account the Applicant’s qualifications and long-term service in the post

No costs were awarded