The Union of India Vs Alaka Kalita Talukdar

We have heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Central Government Counsel for the petitioner/Union of India & others, and Mr. A.N. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

By the present writ petition, the petitioners/Union of India has posed a challenge to the judgment dated 23.05.2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 282/2022; whereby a direction has been issued to the Postal authorities for considering the case of the respondent for regularizing her services, who is a widow and who was temporarily engaged as a Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Carrier (GDSMC) on compassionate ground after her husband’s death.

¶28

The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner/Union of India is that regardless of the fact that the employment of the respondent was temporary/part-time under the Gramin Dak Seval (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 and its later amendment in the year 2020, such a direction has been issued by the Tribunal.

¶29

It may be noted that the husband of the respondent had died in

¶30

Page No.# 3/4

¶31

harness while working as a Daily Wage contractual worker under a work order to assist the mail office. He was not appointed to any substantive post. However, after his death, the respondent was engaged as a temporary GDSMC at Barbang Branch Office, on humanitarian ground, specifically indicating that it was only a temporary engagement, which could end at any time.

¶32

Later, when the engagement of the respondent was terminated in the year 2014, she approached the Tribunal and such termination order was interfered with by the Tribunal and she was allowed to continue temporarily till the time a regular recruitment process was undertaken by the department. The respondent continues even today on temporary basis and has spent several years thereby.

¶33

In the meanwhile, the respondent had again approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 282/2022, seeking regularization of her services. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal, after quoting passages from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826 , directed the department to consider the case of the respondent for regularization, considering her long period of service.

¶34

Mr. Chakraborty, while assailing the order of the Tribunal, very fairly submitted that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the matter has been referred to the authorities concerned for final consideration of the case of the respondent, but he is apprehensive that the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal would be construed by the authorities as a direction for regularization of the services of the respondent.

¶35

We, therefore, in all fitness of things, deem it appropriate to modify the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the direction contained in the

¶36

Page No.# 4/4

¶37

impugned order for considering the case of the respondent would be understood to mean a decision in that regard, as per the law.

¶38

With the afore-noted modification in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, this writ petition is disposed off with the trust and hope that a decision shall be taken in that regard by the department, which shall be communicated to the respondent forthwith.

¶39

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

The Union of India v. Alaka Kalita Talukdar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India v. Alaka Kalita Talukdar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aroti Basfore and 5 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.

The Food Corporation of India and 3 Ors. Vs Jayanta Mohan Singha

The Union of India and 2 Ors. Vs Sri Jagannath Datta

Salam Uddin Khan Vs 2) Jagadish Baishya

Shyamal Bezboruah Vs the Gauhati High Court and Anr.

Bodoland Territorail Council Vs Ajit Chandra Mardi