Dismissed

The Chief Postmaster General v. Asha.P.

Kerala HC29 Sept 2011WP(C)/1878/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a Permanent Lok Adalath order directing postal authorities to pay compensation for delay in delivering an admit card. The Court dismissed the petition, noting that delays and misrouting of the time-sensitive document were admitted facts warranting the award under the Legal Services Authority Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Permanent Lok Adalath order was dismissed.

The Chief Postmaster General Vs Asha.P. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1878 of 2007(W)

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

------------

¶9

1. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (CC) CUSTOMER CARE DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SG OF INDIA

¶12

RESPONDENT: -----------

¶13

ASHA. P., AISHWARYA, T.C.50/1645, KALADY, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.V.SURESH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

JJJ

¶17

WP(C).No. 1878 of 2007(W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1:	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT O.P.NO:7/2006 OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT.11.1.2006
P2:	COPY OF THE ENVELOPE IN WHICH THE CALL LETTER WAS ENCLOSED DT.NIL
P3:	COPY OF THE LAWYER'S NOTIE DT.29.5.2006 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
P4:	COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DT.5.6.2006
P5:	COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN O.P.NO:7/2006 DATED 21.11.2006
P6:	COPY OF THE LETTER DT.28.8.2006 ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE RESPONDENT HEREIN
P7:	COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN IN O.P.NO:7/2006 DATED 23.11.2006
P8:	COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.P.NO:7/2006 DT.5.12.2006

¶21

RESPONDANTS'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

R1(A):	COPY OF DEGREE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CALICUT UNIVERSITY TO THE RESPONDENT
R1(B):	COPY OF THE HALL TICKET ISSUED BY MANGALORE REFINERY & PETROCHEMICALS LTD.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

JJJ

S. Siri Jagan, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶28

W.P(C) No. 1878 of 2007

¶29

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 29^th day of September, 2011.

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

The Chief Post Master General and the Assistant Director, Customer Care Division of the Chief Post Master General, Thiruvananthapuram are the petitioners herein. They are challenging Ext.P8 order of the Permanent Lok Adalath, Thiruvananthapuram directing the petitioners to pay to the respondent an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for delay in delivery of a postal article addressed to the respondent at Thiruvananthapuram.

¶32

The respondent applied for selection to the post of graduate trainee in the Mangalore Refinery and Petro Chemicals Ltd. Admit card for the written examination for selection to that post was sent by the Mangalore Refinery and Petro Chemical Ltd. from Delhi on 6.5.2006. The same was addressed to the respondent at Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram. But, it was forwarded to the Mattancherry post office on 15.5.2006. Finding that the letter is addressed to the respondent at Thiruvananthapuram, the same was forwarded to Thiruvananthapuram. It was delivered to the respondent only on 20.5.2006. The examination was to be conducted at Bangalore on 21.5.2006. Therefore, the respondent could not write the examination. It is under the above circumstances, the

¶33

respondent filed O.P. No. 7/2006 before the Permanent Lok Adalath, Thiruvananthapuram. On a finding that the petitioners were negligent in the matter, the petitioners were directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent by Ext.P8 order. Ext.P8 order is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶34

The contention of the petitioners is that it is settled law that in view of Section 6 of the Indian Post Office Act, the postal authorities cannot be saddled with any liability for loss, misdelivery or damage of postal articles unless the concerned employee of the postal Department caused the same fraudulently or by his wilful act or default. According to the petitioners, in this case, there is no wilful act or default on the part of the concerned employee and therefore no compensation can be awarded in view of Section 6. The petitioners also rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Nazim , AIR 1980 SC 431.

¶35

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. The respondent points out that the petitioners have no case that the postal article was addressed to the respondent at Mattancherry. Clearly, postal article was addressed to the respondent at Karamana, Thiruvananthapuram. In Ext.P8, the Lok Adalath specifically found that the envelope contained the superscription “Mangalore Refinery and Petrto Chemicals Limited. Recruitment of Graduate Trainees-2006 admit card.” According to the respondent, that fact should have put the petitioners on alert as to the necessity to deliver the

¶36

postal article within a reasonable time, which admittedly has not been done in this case. He points out that after wrongly forwarding the postal article to Mattancherry, which reached Mattancherry on 15.5.2006, it was delivered at Thiruvananthapuram only on 20.5.2006, which would spell out clear wilful default on the part of the employee concerned.

¶37

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶38

While considering the rival contentions, I must first note that the Legal Services Authority Act makes the orders of Permanent Lok Adalath final. The writ petition has to be appreciated in the light of that fact. Therefore, this Court can entertain a challenge against the orders of the Permanent Lok Adalath only in cases of violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners and other very extra ordinary circumstances. Here, the facts are clearly admitted. The postal article was despatched from Delhi on 6.5.2006. Admittedly, it was first wrongly forwarded to Mattancherry and it reached Mattancherry only on 15.5.2006 and on re-forwarding to Thiruvananthapuram, it took another five days to reach Thiruvananthapuram. Normally for a letter by ordinary post requires only about 5 days to reach Thiruvananthapuram from Delhi. As such, the facts speak for themselves. In Ext.P8, the Permanent Lok Adalath specifically found that the postal article contained a superscription as to the contents of the postal article. As such, the petitioners cannot now feign ignorance about the contents of the postal article. They should have, knowing that the postal article contained an

¶39

admit card for a written examination, dealt with the same with the urgency it called for, which, admittedly, has not been done in this case insofar as it has first been forwarded to Mattancherry for no reason whatsoever and again it took 5 days to deliver it to Thiruvananthapuram from Mattancherry.

¶40

In view of the said clear facts, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶42

Tds/

The Chief Postmaster General v. Asha.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Chief Postmaster General v. Asha.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh V.B & Others Vs the Authorised Officer,Uco Bank & Anothe

Aylwin Noel Varghese Vs Indian Bank and Others

Shahida T.K. Vs the South Indian Bank Limited and Anr.

Anil. I Vs the District Collector

Mokkath Balan Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

A.Udayabhanu Vs the Secretary, Civil Supplies