Subject: Dismissal of the claim of GDS for Gratuity under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 heard before the Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central), Vijayawada filed by Sh. Chintalapudi Balayogi & 166 Ors, A.P circle reg.
158 | 133/2025 | 300115406 | MUSHINI VIJAYALAKSHMI DESIGNATION: GDS MD 12-186, KOPPISETTI VARI STREET/KOTHAPETA DISTRICT: KONASEEMA STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 533223 |
159 | 134/2025 | 300115540 | NIMMU SESHAGIRI RAO, DESIGNATION: GDS MODA 2-4, PATA RAJANAGARAM DISTRICT: ELURU STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 534311 |
160 | 135/2025 | 300115937 | SANABOINA PAVAN KALYAN DESIGNATION: G D S ABPM 1-105, K YENGUPALLI DISTRICT: KONASEEMA STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 533240 |
161 | 136/2025 | 300116099 | ANIPEDDI SARADAMBA DESIGNATION: GDS BPM, 1-241, PRAGADAPALLI POLAVARAM MANDAL DISTRICT: ELURU STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 534318 |
162 | 138/2025 | 300117112 | KOLLURI MUTYALARAO DESIGNATION: GDS BPM 1-40 DISTRICT: ELURU STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 534311 |
163 | 141/2025 | 300118188 | TATINENI RANI DESIGNATION: RETIRED GDS BPM 1-123 GUDAPADU MOVVA MANDAL DISTRICT: KRISHNA STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 521135 |
164 | 142/2025 | 300118619 | BANDARU CHINA NARSAIAH DESIGNATION: GDS ABPM 2-45 DISTRICT: ELURU STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 534456 |
165 | 143/2025 | 300118621 | KUKATI NUKAYYA DESIGNATION: GDS ABPM 1-129 DISTRICT: ELURU STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 534456 |
166 | 149/2025 | 300119501 | KARIBANDI NARAYANA RAO DESIGNATION: ABPM GDS D.NO.17-302, PATHA POLAVARAM, POLAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DISTRICT: ELURU STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH 534315 |
167 | 153/2025 | 300120815 | YELUGULA NAGABHUSHANA RAO, GDS ABPM, 2-144/1, RAMALAYAM VEEDHI, CHINTALURU, DISTRICT: KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533446 |
And
Department of Posts, Rep. by PMG, Vijayawada/Visakhapatnam
1. The above mentioned Applicants are Ex-Employees of Department of Posts, Government of India worked as Gramin Dak Sevaks (herein after referred to as Applicants) filed claim applications in Form – 'N' under Rule 10 (1) of the Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 requesting the Controlling Authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Vijayawada (herein after referred to as Authority) to issue necessary directions to the Department of Posts, Government of India (Herein after referred to as Respondent) to pay them the amount of Gratuity as per Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Herein after referred to as Act). The applicants filed applications for condonation of delay in filing the claim applications.
2. On receipt of the claim applications, the Authority has issued notices to the Applicants and the Respondent in Form-'O' to appear before the Authority along with all witnesses upon whose evidence and the documents upon which they intend to rely in support of their allegations/defend as the case may be. The Controlling Authority held the hearings on different dates and finally on 29-04-2025. Since the first common issue, 'whether the Applicant is employee as per Section 2 (e) of the Act and is entitled to payment of gratuity under this Act' is involved in all the claim applications, these claim applications are being decided together by this common order.
3. The Applicants submitted that Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 were effective from 24.04.2001. The said rules were amended as Gramin Dak Devaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 and thereafter as Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagements) Rules, 2020. In the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Senior Superintendent of post offices Vs Gursevak Singh and Others the Civil Appeal No 3151 of 2019 in support of their case in which it is referred to the Rules of 2011. As per the Rules of 2011, Ex-gratia Gratuity was to be paid to GDS at the rate of half months basic TRCA drawn immediately before discharge of service, for each completed year of service subject to a maximum of Rs. 60,000/- or 16.5 times basic TRCA last drawn, whichever is less. Minimum service prescribed for eligibility of Ex-gratia gratuity is 10 years. There is no dispute about the minimum service of 10 years to get eligibility for payment of gratuity for the applicants as they put in service of more than 30 years. But, the Rules of 2020 revised the nomenclature of Ex-gratia Gratuity as "GDS Gratuity". At the same time, the maximum limit of the gratuity amount was raised to one lakh and fifty thousand rupees (Rs.1,50,000). The Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable in this regard as the gratuity being paid to the GDS is no more "Ex-gratia" which means an amount paid out of sheer mercy, but not as a matter of legal duty or lawful requirement. The gratuity being paid to the GDS after the Rules 2020 is named as GDS Gratuity which means the gratuity paid to the GDS. It is to be noted that the present gratuity being paid to the GDS is unqualified gratuity, i.e. gratuity, pure and simple, without any prefix like "Ex-gratia" as was mentioned in the earlier Rules of 2011. The maximum limit of Rs 60,000 was stipulated, might be due to the prefix "Ex-gratia" to the word gratuity. The same fixing of the maximum limit of gratuity amount as in the case of Ex-gratia gratuity ought not to have been carried into the new type of gratuity i.e. "GDS gratuity". This type of limiting the maximum amount of gratuity is violative of the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 and also violative of the spirit of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to payment of gratuity as prayed for in their applications according to law of gratuity. There are no bonafides in framing the Rules by the respondent, Department of Posts, the Union of India as they only want to avoid payment of gratuity to the GDS as per the law of 1972. It may be true that the GDS are working for 5 hours in a day. But, their salary is also not determined on the basis of their working for 8 hours a day as full time employees. Their monthly salary would have been definitely more than what they were actually paid if they were allowed to work for 8 hours. Payment of gratuity is a principle followed by the Authorities for the service rendered by the employees. The rate of payment of gratuity cannot be different from one Government employee to another as both of them are Government employees doing their respective services for such duration of time as decided by the Government. The Gramin Dak Sevaks did not decide that they would work only for 5 hours a day. The respondent has been taking advantage of their own act of limiting the time of work of GDS and at the same time limiting the quantum of payment of gratuity. the GDS applicants only pray for payment of gratuity on the basis of their salary paid only for 5 hours a day, but not for 8 hours a day. It is discriminatory in its character in not paying the gratuity to the GDS at the same rate without any limitation as per law of the land as being paid to the other Government employees for the only reason of there is a small difference in the quantum of work time of 3 hours for a day, for which also, the Department is squarely responsible and for which the GDS have got zero responsibility. It is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore it is legal and rational that gratuity a paid to GDS on the basis of their own salary notwithstanding the number of hours they were allowed to work for without illegally and untenably fixing the upper limit. It is submitted that the Gramin Dak Sevaks are Granted benefits and facilities at par with Departmental employees by the Department of posts after obtaining the due approval of the Government of India. It is true that the Gramin Dak Sevaks are working under the Union Government as workers. The GDS gratuity granted as per the formula mentioned in the gratuity act 1972. The female GDS are granted maternity leave for a period of 180 days at par with Departmental female employees. GDS are granted Annual increase i.e. 3% at par with Departmental employees. Each and every Gramin Dak Sevak is allotted employee ID for all purposes including terminal benefits. In view of the above mentioned facts GDS are working under the Union Government as workers. Hence GDS are entitled to payment of gratuity as per the Act.
4. The Respondents filed their reply stating that since the subject matter of all the applications is one and the same, a common reply is filed. They submitted that the system of Gramin Dak Sevak is exclusive to the Department of Posts and they are governed by the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Employment) Rules amended from time to time. The Applicants herein worked in the Postal Department as Gramin Dak Sevaks and discharged from service on attaining the age of 65 years. On discharge of the Applicants from service, GDS Gratuity payable to them under applicable service Rules, i.e. Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules was sanctioned and paid to them. The Applicants approached the Controlling Authority with a prayer to determine the amount of gratuity payable to them as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and direct the Respondent / employer to pay the same to them.
The Respondents further stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad [1998 SCC (L&S) page 447] wherein the system and object of engaging EDAs and their status was considered and adjudicated upon, held that P&T Extra Departmental Agent (C&S) Rules, 1964 are a complete code governing service, conduct and disciplinary proceedings against EDAs. P&T ED agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 were repealed and a new set of rules called Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 was introduced effective from 24.04.2001. The said rules were amended as Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 and thereafter as Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020.
It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1977 SC 1677, 1977 II SCC 650 between SPOs & Others Vs. P. K. Rajamma & Others and in Union of India and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad, that Extra Departmental Agents [now called as GDSs] are holders of Civil posts under the Union of India as contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution of India, but they are outside the Central Civil Service Rules.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already decided that Extra Departmental Agents (now Gramin Dak Sevaks) were civil servants and did not belong to the category of workmen and that the Postal Department is not 'Industry' vide its decision in Sub Divisional Inspector of Post, Vaskan Vs. Theyyam Joseph JT 1996 (2) SC 457. Hon'ble Apex Court also held that when the workman / employee's service are governed by special rules, such employee is entitled to seek redressal of his grievance under the P&T EDAs Conduct & Service Rules, 1965 framed by exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and not under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by the Hon'ble High Court of AP & Telangana at Hyderabad in judgment dated 17.07.2018 in WP
Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeals No.3150/2019 & 3151/2019 decided on 15.03.2019 has already considered the question of "whether a Gramin Dak Sewak is an 'employee' as per Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act, and is entitled to payment of Gratuity under this Act?" and the Hon'ble Apex Court decided that the Gramin Dak Sewak is not an employee under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Observations of the Hon'ble Court are as under:
"Section 2(e) of the 1972 Act excludes persons who hold a post with the Central or State Government and are governed by any other Act or rules providing for payment of Gratuity.
Gramin Dak Sewaks are engaged as Extra Departmental Agents, a post governed by the 2011 Rules. These Rules have a separate provision for payment of Gratuity to the Extra Departmental Agents.
A Gramin Dak Sewak is not an "employee" under the 1972 Act."
Therefore, the EDAs/ GDSs are excluded from the definition of an employee prescribed in Section 2 (e) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 which reads as under:
Section 2 (e) "Employee" means any person (other than apprentice) employed on wages in any establishment, factory, mine, oil field, plantation, port, railway company or shop, to do any skilled, semi-skilled or unskilled, manual, supervisory, technical or clerical work, whether the terms of such employment are express or implied, and whether or not such person is employed in a managerial or administrative capacity, but does not include any such person who holds a post under Central Government or a State Government and is governed by any other Act or by any rules providing for payment of Gratuity.
The subject matter of the case was also come up for consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court following the law already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CA No.3150-3151/2019, allowed the WP N.14050/2019 filed by the department vide its order dated 06.07.2022 and set aside the orders passed by the adjudicating authority in directing the department to pay Gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and also the orders of the Appellate Authority in upholding the orders passed by the adjudicating authority.
As the law already decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Gramin Dak Sewak is not an 'employee' as per Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and not entitled to payment of Gratuity under this Act, the Applicants are not covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and accordingly, the present applications are liable to rejected / dismissed and pass appropriate orders as deemed fit.
5. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Applicants herein are Gramin Dak Sevaks who holds a post under Central Government, governed by Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Employment) Rules, which have a separate provision for payment of Gratuity. As the Applicants do not fall under the definition of 'employee' as defined in Section 2 (e) of the Act, they are not employees under the Act and therefore, are not entitled to gratuity as claimed.
DECISION
Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the instant Claim Applications are devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed.
GIVEN UNDER MY SEAL AND SIGNATURE ON THIS 22nd DAY OF MAY, 2025.
RAVINDER DUHAN
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL)::VIJAYAWADA
Date: 22-05-2025
To:
RAVINDER DUHAN
CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972 & ASST. LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) VIJAYAWADA
Updates:
Follow us on WhatsApp, Telegram Channel, Twitter and Facebook for all latest updates
My overall experience with ReddyAnna has been great. Their support is quick and responsive, and the system rarely lags. It’s a dependable choice for daily use.
ReplyDeletePost a Comment