Substitute GDS employees lack vested rights to tenure and cannot invoke Rule 8 protection against termination.

The applicant, Raju Ram, claimed he was appointed as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier (GDS MC) via verbal orders on 02.02.2009 and served continuously at different post offices until 2016

He alleged that the respondents artificially broke his service to prevent him from attaining permanent status

He approached the Tribunal seeking to restrain the respondents from terminating his services, arguing that as an employee with over three years of service, he could not be terminated under Rule 8 of the GDS Rules

The respondents contended that the applicant was never a regular employee but was engaged intermittently as a "substitute" for regular employees (Chagna Ram and Mala Ram) while they were on leave, as evidenced by appointment orders R/2 to R/19

1. Whether the applicant was a regular GDS employee entitled to the protection of Rule 8 of the GDS Rules regarding termination of service

2. Whether the engagement of a person as a "substitute" creates a vested right to continue in service or requires a formal notice of termination under the GDS Rules

Rule 8 of the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, which provides that the employment of a Sevak who has not rendered three years of continuous service can be terminated by notice

Dinesh Chandra Vyas v. UOI and Union of India v. Chandresh Kumar, which hold that Rule 8 termination notices do not apply to regular GDS employees who have completed more than three years of continuous service, as they acquire a higher status protected by procedural requirements

The Tribunal found that the applicant suppressed material facts regarding the nature of his appointment. While the applicant claimed continuous regular service, the respondents produced documentary evidence (Annexures R/2 to R/19) showing he was specifically engaged as a substitute for regular GDS MCs who had proceeded on leave

The Tribunal noted that these appointment orders explicitly stated the substitute could be discharged at any time without reason

Because the applicant's entry into service was not through a regular recruitment process but as a stop-gap substitute, he did not hold a "post" in a regular manner

Consequently, the legal protections afforded to regular GDS employees under Rule 8 or the cited precedents did not apply to him

The court found the application meritless due to the concealment of the factual nature of the engagement. No orders as to costs were made