All India Postal Employees Union Group C through Its Circle Secretary Puranjay Kumar Vs Union of India through the Ministry of Communications Deptt of Posts (Sr Section)

2025:JHHC:36636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.3395 of 2023

....

All India Postal Employees Union Group ‘C’, (A Recognised Service Association), having its circle office at Meghdoot Bhawan, Doranda P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi, PIN 834001, (Jharkhand) through its Circle Secretary Jharkhand, namely, Puranjay Kumar, aged about 50 years, son of Late Raghu Nandan Prasad Singh, resident of Flat No.402, Subala Garden, K G Ashram, Nichitpur, Town Dhanbad, P.O. Katras Bazar, P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad, PIN 828114, (Jharkhand) .… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. Union of India, through the Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts (SR Section), having its office at Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, P.O.-Sansad Marg Head Post Office, P.S.-Sansad Marg

¶7

2. Director (SR & Legal), Department of Posts, Government of India, having its office at Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, P.O.Sansad Marg Head Post Office, P.S.-Sansad Marg

¶8

3. Assistant Director General (SR & Legal), Department of Posts, Government of India, having its office at Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001, P.O.Sansad Marg Head Office, P.S. Sansad Marg

¶9

4. Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation, having its Central Headquarters at T-21, Atul Grove Road, New Delhi-110001, P.O.-Sansad Marg, Head Post Office-P.S.Sansad Marg .... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶11

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rishabh Kaushal, Adv. : Ms. Niharika Nidhi, Adv. For the U.O.I. : Mr. Ravi Prakash, C.G.C. For the Resp. No.4 : Mr. Abhishek S.Sinha, Adv. : Mr. Vikram Kumar, Adv. : Mr. Naresh Kumar, Adv.

¶12

15/06.12.2025

¶13

Heard the parties.

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

¶15

“(i) For quashing/setting aside letter nos. 08/02/2013 (Annexure-5)SR dated 03.06.2015, 8-20/2013-SR dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure-6), 08–20/2013- SR dated 19.09.2019 (Annexure-7) issued by Respondent - Department of Posts, wherein limited trade union facilities have been extended to Respondent-Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation and its affiliated Unions as being wholly illegal and arbitrary and in utter violation of Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993 as the pre requisites for granting of trade Union facilities are not fulfilled.

¶16

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration, declaring that the action of Respondent-Department of Posts in granting limited Trade Union Facilities to Respondent–

¶17

2025:JHHC:36636

¶18

Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation and its affiliated Unions is wholly illegal and arbitrary as the said facilities have been extended by the Respondent - Department of Posts in blatant contravention of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993.

¶19

(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent-Department of Posts to abstain from extending limited Trade Union Facilities to Respondent - Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation and its affiliated Unions with immediate effect.

¶20

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the present writ petition has been filed for parity invoking under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made claim on following grounds:-

¶22

i. The petitioner is a recognized service association under the respondents and has been recognized in the year 2019 but he has been de-recognized in the year 2023.

¶23

ii. Both the petitioner as well as the private respondent No.4 are unrecognized association.

¶24

iii. It has been further pointed out that the respondent No.4 has failed in the scrutiny and as such he is not eligible for recognition.

¶25

iv. But the private respondent No.4 has been given facility of recognized service association by Annexure-5 and Annexure-6.

¶26

v. Further, after failing in the scrutiny, Annexure-7 has been issued which reads as under:-

¶27

Government of India Ministry of Communications Department of Posts (SR Section)

¶28

Dak Bhawan, New Delhi: 110001 Dated: 19th September, 2019

¶29

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

¶30

Subject: Trade Union Facilities to Bharatiya Postal Employees Federation and its

¶31

Affiliated Unions.

¶32

With reference to above subject, it has been decided that the limited trade union facilities provided to the BPEF and its affiliated Unions are to be continued till further orders.

¶33

The issues with the approval of Secretary (Posts).

¶34

Director (SR & Legal)

¶35

2

¶36

W.P.(C) No.3395 of 2023

¶37

2025:JHHC:36636

¶38

Referring to the above factual matrix, it has been submitted that the action of the respondent authority is directly in teeth of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has both positive and negative mandate.

¶39

Giving facility, the Article 14 of the Constitution of India mandates that the authorities has to maintain rationality and equality in the reasoning process as well as in the action.

¶40

In the present case, the issuance of Annexure-5, 6 and 7 clearly shows discriminatory attitude of the private respondent. Especially, in fact that once upon a time, the petitioner was a recognized association.

¶41

Learned counsel for the U.O.I. has opposed the above submission and stated that the petitioner association was de-recognized on the ground that there were some financial irregularities and he has made funding to the kishan andolan and on that basis, he has been de-recognized and as such the nature of allegation suggests that he cannot be given the facility which he is otherwise not eligible. The private respondent has no such allegation. Although he does not fulfill the criteria for recognition but there is no allegation against the respondent No.4.

¶42

Since the petitioner is not a clean association and as such the respondent No.4 has been given limited facility. Although, no statement has been made that “whether the respondent is also a clean association or not?”

¶43

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondent No.4 has tried his best but could not get the recognition because his number of members were less. Since he otherwise participated in the process and as such authority has thought fit to maintain the industrial harmony to give limited facility to the respondent No.4.

¶44

It has been further submitted that the allegation of the petitioner that it has been done at the instance of D.o.P. & T. is factually incorrect because there is no provision for getting opinion of the D.o.P. & T.

¶45

Learned counsel for the U.O.I. has stressed at relevant portion of paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit dated 13.02.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶46

“On the request of BPEF only limited facilities are provided being to its affiliated Associations. DoP&T's advice was also sought on this subject. DOP&T's is the nodal ministry for Service Associations affairs. All Service Associations operate under the rules and guidelines issued by the DoP&T's. The DoP&T's gave its advice as follows:-

¶47

3

¶48

W.P.(C) No.3395 of 2023

¶49

2025:JHHC:36636

¶50

"It is also mentioned that under CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 there is no concept of limited trade union facilities and as such in so far DoP&T's is concerned we have no observations in this matter. If in the interest of maintaining industrial harmony in Department Of Posts, the Department intends to give limited trade union facilities to the Bharatiya Postal Employees Federation (BPEF) affiliated associations; it is for them to take an administrative decision in this matter".”

¶51

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that he has adopted the argument made by the U.O.I. It has been further submitted that now the strength, so far as members are concerned, got enhanced.

¶52

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the record, this Court finds following points:-

¶53

i. The petitioner had originally made a broader prayer, but during the course of arguments, he confined his request only to the grant of limited facility.

¶54

ii. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have been found disqualified so far as eligibility for recognition is concerned.

¶55

iii. Law does not permit for limited recognition or limited facility.

¶56

iv Differential treatment has been given on the ground that there was a funding and financial misappropriation.

¶57

v. Recognition is for limited purpose, for granting limited facility to the members are concerned.

¶58

In view of above discussion, this Court finds that giving differential treatment to two different associations is not justified rather the reason assigned is not as per the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶59

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to give similar treatment to the petitioner also which has been given to respondent No.4.

¶60

With above observation and direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

¶61

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶62

06.12.2025

¶63

Shahid/ Uploaded on 10.12.2025

¶64

4

¶65

W.P.(C) No.3395 of 2023

All India Postal Employees Union Group C through Its Circle Secretary Puranjay Kumar v. Union of India through the Ministry of Communications Deptt of Posts (Sr Section)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All India Postal Employees Union Group C through Its Circle Secretary Puranjay Kumar v. Union of India through the Ministry of Communications Deptt of Posts (Sr Section)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayram Prasad Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bishwanath Jha Vs State of Jharkhand

Smt. Anuradha Chatterjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Uma Shankar Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand, through Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms

M/S Prb Associates Represented through Its One of the Partner Namely Mahendra Mishra Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nagiya Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary