The Director General of Postal Service Vs Aditya Prakash Dwivedi

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010227322025

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:9661-DB

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1326/2026

¶6

1.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS (RECRUITMENT DIVISION), MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DAK BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-01

¶7

2: THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL 5TH FLOOR MEGHDOOT BHAWAN ASSAM CIRCLE GUWAHATI

¶8

3: THE POSTMASTER GENERAL DIBRUGARH REGION, DIBRUGARH

¶9

4: THE SR SUPERINTENDENT RMS S DIVISION, SILCHAR

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

ADITYA PRAKASH DWIVEDI S/O- RAKESH DUBEY, SORTING ASSISTANT , OFFICE OF THE SUB RECORD OFFICER, RMS S DIVISION JORHAT ASSAM, PIN-785001

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Medhi, Central Government Counsel. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. G. Choudhury, Advocate.

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

– B E F O R E –

¶15

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶16

15.07.2026

¶17

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶18

We have heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioners/ Director General of Postal Service & 3 Ors. and Mr. G. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the sole respondent.

¶19

The petitioners have questioned the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench , New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as the “Tribunal”) in Original Application No.3990/2024, whereby, the petitioners had been directed to pay to the respondent all notional benefits as per law including seniority, pay fixation etc.

¶20

A brief detour in the facts of the case would be necessary.

¶21

A Combined Graduate Level examination (CGL) was conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SCC) in the year 2022 in which the respondent had participated against the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) quota. On his coming out successful in the examination at all levels, he was provisionally allotted the post of a Sorting Assistant in RMS ‘S’ Division, Silchar, which post was under the EWS category.

¶22

Later, verification of the documents furnished by the respondent disclosed that he had not submitted a valid Income and Asset

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

Certificate, which should have been relevant for the year 2022-2023. The respondent was given extension of time to furnish the current/valid Income and Asset Certificate, establishing that he hails from EWS quota, but, till the last date fixed on 09.10.2023, which was the date when the physical verification of the documents had to be made, such certificate was not produced by the respondent.

¶25

It appears from the records that such certificate was produced by the respondent only on 31.10.2024, which was not accepted by the employer on the ground of delay and the selection of the respondent was cancelled.

¶26

It further appears that later, with the intervention of the Tribunal, the certificate which had been furnished by the respondent was verified and the same was found to be genuine. The respondent, therefore, was given a provisional appointment letter again.

¶27

The Tribunal vide impugned order had also directed that the respondent be accorded all notional benefits, as per the law, including seniority, pay fixation at par with the persons who ranked junior to him in the merit list, who had passed the SCC Combined Graduate Level Examination.

¶28

A time-limit of 8(eight) weeks had been given to comply with the afore-noted direction.

¶29

Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel raises an objection to this part of the order of the Tribunal which enjoins upon the employer to give seniority to the respondent and also fixation of pay in accordance with his seniority. Mr. Medhi submits that seniority has to be,

¶30

Page No.# 4/5

¶31

for all practical purposes, reckoned from the date of the appointment and even pay fixation would be governed by the Rule that no pay is to be given for no work done.

¶32

However, from the records, it appears that the same certificate which was furnished by the respondent was verified by the Office of the petitioner and was found to be genuine. Such verification though was made because of the intervention of the Tribunal in the matter; nonetheless, it cannot be said that the delay in the appointment letter being issued to the respondent was attributable to the employer or to the respondent for the reason that such certificates are granted on the asking of the concerned employee from a particular branch of the Government.

¶33

No reason appears to have been asked from the respondent about the delay in furnishing the valid Income and Asset Certificate.

¶34

Under such circumstances, it can be presumed that it was because of the delay of the Administrative Branch of the Government which was supposed to give such certificate to an aspirant when asked for.

¶35

There being nothing on record that the certificate was procured illegally or was not correct, it would be difficult to counter the reasoning of the Tribunal that since the appointment related to the same batch and the delay was merely because of non-furnishing of the valid Income and Asset Certificate, and that even prior to the document verification, the respondent was given the provisional appointment, his seniority be fixed along with his batch mates according to his merit.

¶36

Page No.# 5/5

¶37

Thus, we uphold the order of the Tribunal to the extent of giving seniority to the respondent by upholding his appointment to be deemed from the time when his juniors in the list of successful candidates were appointed. In order to maintain parity, his pay be also fixed, notionally from the initial date of appointment but he shall not be paid the arrears.

¶38

With the afore-noted modification in the order passed by the Tribunal, this writ petition stands disposed off.

¶39

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

The Director General of Postal Service v. Aditya Prakash Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General of Postal Service v. Aditya Prakash Dwivedi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jatin Rajkonwar and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

The Union of India and 8 Ors. Vs Mousumi Devi

Assam Tea Employees Provident Fund Organisation (a.T.E.P.F.O) and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Mamtaz Foundation Vs Gauhati University and 9 Ors.

Jakinur Hussain Alias Zakinur Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Miss Divyana a Lahan Vs Smti Binita Pegu