Heard Mr. Shafik M.A. learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the Central Government. 

MA No. 180/317/2017 for joining together is allowed.

As per order dated 3.4.2017 an officer of the respondent Department Ms. Lissy Girl Antony P, Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, Ernakulam Postal Division also is present with the records. 

The grievance of the applicant is that though there are vacancies of drivers to drive the departmental vehicles, the respondents are not giving work to the applicants who were working in the MMS since 2013 on the basis of having been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. 

This is the 3rd round of litigation. In OA No. 1143 of 2014 the applicants had sought a direction to the respondents to notify the vacancies of the Drivers of MMS vehicles and to consider them against such vacancies. In OA No. 533 of 2016 they approached this Tribunal again when the respondents started reducing their hours of work and engaging strangers in their place thereby depriving them of sufficient work on every day when they come for duty. In OA No. 533 of 2016 vide Annexure A11 order this Tribunal gave a direction to the respondents to ensure that the applicants (applicants herein) are given sufficient work on every day when they come for duty and that they shall be given the full wages due to them as casual drivers of MMS instead of engaging them on hourly basis till the regular drivers are posted.

Now applicants have once again approached this Tribunal when there was a move by the respondents to terminate the services of the applicant as drivers when the regular recruitment of two candidates were made as per Annexure A1 notification. According to the applicants they could not take part in Annexure A1 recruitment process on the ground that they are over aged.

The present case of the applicants is that though there are vacancies of MMS drivers and despite the applicants are available for work attempt is being made by the respondents to terminate their services. At the time of admission hearing of this OA, this Tribunal passed an interim order of status quo. The aforesaid interim order is still in force.

On 27.3.2017 this Tribunal called upon the respondents to file a reply statement clarifying the following aspects:

1. How many departmental vehicles are there in running condition?
2. How many MMA schedules are there in a day?
3. Number of Departmental Drivers available and details of shortage, if any.
4. Reason for engaging private vehicles.

Though no reply statement has yet been filed as directed by this Tribunal, when the matter was taken up today it was submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Central Government that as on 30.3.2017 there are 14 departmental vehicles in running condition. It was also submitted that the MMS schedules on a working day are 14 and that the number regular drivers as on 30.3.2017 was 9. He further submitted that as per the instructions received from the respondents Department, besides the existing 9 drivers one departmental driver from the office of SSPO, Ernakulam Division is also working on a temporary work arrangement basis and that two casual drivers have been engaged through the employment exchange. It was also submitted that these two casual drivers are applicants Nos. 2 & 3 in this case. It was further stated by the respondents counsel that as and when schedules are cancelled due to leave, off duty of regular drivers or due to the absence of the drivers, mail is transported by using hired vehicles.

Shri Shafik, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicants No. 1 & 4 are not given any engagement in spite of the existing vacancies of drivers. He further submitted that without engaging the applicants who are readily available for service and in disobedience of Annexure A11 direction from this Tribunal in the final order in OA No. 533 of 2016, the respondents have engaged two more persons sponsored by the employment exchange besides engaging private vehicles for movement of mail.

It is difficult to understand as to why the respondents picked and chose applicants Nos. 1 & 4 for disengaging them as casual MMS drivers while applicants Nos. 2 & 3 have been retained to do the work as drivers. Obviously there are sufficient number of vacancies wherein all the applicants could be engaged. This Tribunal feels that such disengagement from work when vacancies of drivers exist tantamount to violation of Annexure A11 order of this Tribunal.

This Tribunal is astonished to note that when such casual drivers are available and when departmental vehicles also are available why the respondents are hiring private vehicles for the movement of mails. Favouring owners and drivers of private vehicle is undoubtedly a drain of public money, especially when departmental vehicles are available and the applicants are ready to work on the strength of Annexure A11 order. It appears to this Tribunal that the 1st respondent Chief Postmaster General should look in to this matter and to ascertain why public money is wasted in the above fashion.

By way of an interim order this Tribunal is inclined to give a direction to respondents to forthwith engage applicants Nos. 1 to 4 as drivers of MMS in terms of Annexure A11 order of this Tribunal, till the regular drivers are posted. It is further directed that respondents shall give applicants Nos. 1 to 4 sufficient work on every day when they come for duty and that they shall be paid full wages from today.

Post the matter for filing reply statement and also for completing the pleadings on 18.5.2017.

Issue a copy of this order to learned counsel appearing on both sides. The learned ACGSC shall communicate a copy of this order to the Chief Postmaster General.