http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES ETC. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: P.K. RAJAMMA ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1977

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) KAILASAM, P.S.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1677            1977 SCR  (3) 678  1977 SCC  (3)  94  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1981 SC  53  (15)  RF         1992 SC 573  (14,40)

ACT:              Constitution  of India, Art. 311 (2)--Whether the  post         of   extra   Departmental   Branch   Postmasters/Sub   Post-         Masters/Delivery agents a "Civil Post" within the meaning of         Art.   311(2)--Posts  and   Telegraphs    Extra-Departmental         Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964--Rule 2(b).

HEADNOTE:              The respondents in all these appeals are "extra depart-         mental agents" within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the  Posts         and   Telegraphs   Extra  Departmental  Agents  (Conduct  of         Service)  Rules, 1964 issued under the  authority   of   the         Government of India.  They were either dismissed or  removed         from  service during the period between January 1, 1966  and         June 18, 1974, admittedly without complying with the  provi-         sions of Art. 311(2) of  the  Constitution.  The question in         each  case is whether the respondent held a "civil post"  as         contemplated  in Art. 311(2) of the Constitution.  The  High         Court  of  Kerala,  Andhra Pradesh & Orissa  held  that  the         respondents  held a civil post under the Union of India  and         the  orders terminating their services in violation of  Art.         31.1(2) of the Constitution were invalid.         Dismissing the appeals the Court,              HELD:  (1) An "extra departmental agent" held a  "civil         post"  and  his dismissal or removal would  be  invalid,  if         there was non-compliance with Art. 311 (2) of the  Constitu-         tion.  [680 B-C. 682 E]         (2) An extra departmental agent is not a casual worker,  but         he  holds  a post  under the administrative control  of  the         State.   It is apparent from  the  1964 Rules that  the  em-         ployment  of  an  extra  departmental agent  is  in  a  post         which  exists "apart from" the person who happens to fill it         at any  particular  time. Though such a post is outside  the         regular civil service, there is no doubt it is a post  under         the State.  [681 E-F]         State  of Assam & Ors. v. Kanak Chandra Dutta [1967]  1  SCR         679 @ 682 applied.              (3)  The  1964 rules make it clear  that  these  extra-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       departmental agents work under the direct control and super-         vision  of  the authority who obviously have  the  right  to         control  the manner in which they must carry out  their  du-         ties.  There can be no doubt, therefore, that the  relation-         ship between the Postal Authorities and the extra-departmen-         tal agents are of master and servant.  [662 C-E]              Venkataswamy v. Superintendent, Post Offices, AIR  1957         Orissa   112;   V.  Subbaravalu v.  Superintendent  of  Post         Offices, AIR  1961  Madras  166,  held inapplicable.

JUDGMENT:               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: C. As Nos. 1172,   1354,         1355 and 1751 of 1972.                 (Appeals  by  Special Leave from  the  Judgment  and         Order dated the  27.9.1971 of the Kerala High Court in  O.P.         No. 1339/70 W.A.No.   8/70, W.A. No. 420/69 and O.P. No. 862         of 1969 respectively.)                                    AND                   Civil Appeal No. 2275 of 1972         679             (Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated  the  18.11.1971 of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court  in         Writ Petition No. 5662/70).                                             AND         Civil Appeals Nos. 1015/73, 1865/74 and CA No. 506/76.             (From  the Judgments and Orders dated the 7-9-72,  22-7-         74, and 30-10.1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in  Writ         Petitions Nos. 4717/71, 3914/74 and 4213/75 respectively).                                    AND                   CA No. 1866 of 1973 and 1867/73.         (Appeals  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dt.         the  15.2.1972  of  the Andhra Pradesh High  Court  in  Writ         Petition  No. 2933 and 3385/71 respectively.)                                        AND                        Civil Appeal No. 1234 of 1974.             (Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated  the  18.10.1973 of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court  in         S.A. No. 360 of 1972).                                   AND         Civil Appeal Nos. 1300 and 1393 of 1976.             (From the Judgment and Order dated the 5-12-1975 of the.         Kerala High Court in Writ Appeals Nos. 414 & 415 of 1975).                                      AND         Civil Appeal No. 1313 of 1976.             (Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment  and  Order         dated  the 10.3.1976 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C.  No.         531/74).             Niren De, Attorney General of India in CAs 1171,   1354-         1355;  V.P. Raman, Addl. Sol. General in CAs 2275  and  1313         with B. Datta in CAs 1172, 1355 and 2275 and Girish Chandra,         for the appellants in all the appeals.             Vepa Sarathi, N. Sudhakaran and P.K. Pillai for respond-         ents in CA 1172/72.             Vepa Sarathi (1354) K.M.K. Nair and Mrs. B. Krishnan for         respondents in CAs 1354, 1751/72 and 1300 and 1393 of 1976.                Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent in CA 1355.             K.  Jayaram  and  K. Ram Kumar for  respondents  in  CAs         1866-67, 1015/73 and 1865 of 1974 and 506/76.         Mrs. Veena Devi Khanna, for respondent in CA 2275/72. C.S. S         Rao, for respondent in CA 1313/76.         680         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             GUPTA,  3.--The  respondents in all these  fourteen  ap-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

       peals, some of which are on certificate and some by  special         leave,  are  extra-departmental agents  connected  with  the         postal  department.    Six of these. appeals  are  from  the         Kerala High Court, seven from the Andhra Pradesh High  Court         and  one  from. the Orissa High Court.    These  respondents         were  either dismissed or removed from service during    the         period between January 1, 1966 and June 18, 1974, and admit-         tedly  the order of dismissal or removal was passed  without         complying  with  the  provisions of Article  311(2)  of  the         Constitution.    The  question in each case is  whether  the         respondent held a civil post as contemplated in Article  311         of the Constitution; if he did the dismissal or removal,  as         the  case may be, would be unquestionably invalid  for  non-         compliance with Article 311(2).             The  conditions of service of the respondents  are  gov-         erned  by  a body of rules called the Posts  and  Telegraphs         Extra  Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964         (hereinafter called   the rules) issued under the  authority         of the Government of India.  Rule 2(b) of the rules defining         "Extra  Departmental  Agent" includes within  the  category,         among  others, Extra  Departmental  Sub Postmaster’s,  Extra         Departmental Branch postmasters, Extra Departmental Delivery         Agents, and several sections of class IV employees.   Eleven         of  the respondents arc extra departmental  branch  postmas-         ters,  one is an extra departmental delivery agent, and  two         are  class  IV extra departmental employees.  In  all  these         cases  the High Courts have found that the respondents  held         civil  posts under the Union of India and the orders  termi-         nating their services in violation of Article 311 (2) of the         Constitution were invalid.             This  Court  in  State of Assam and  others  v.    Kanak         Chandra  Dutta(1) has explained what a civil post  is.    In         that  case  the respondent who was a Mauzadar in  the  Assam         Valley was dismissed from service in disregard of the provi-         sions  of Article 311 (2).  It was held that "having  regard         to  the existing system of his recruitment,  employment  and         functions",  he was "a servant and a holder of a civil  post         under  the State", and therefore entitled to the  protection         of Article 311(2). This Court observed:                       "   ....   a  civil post means  a   post   not                       connected  with defence and outside the  regu-                       lar  civil services.   A post is a service  or                       employment   .......  There is a  relationship                       of master and servant between the State and  a                       person  holding a post under it.   The  exist-                       ence of this relationship is indicated by  the                       State’s right to select and appoint the holder                       of  the post, its right to suspend and dismiss                       him,  its  right  to control  the  manner  and                       method  of his doing the work and the  payment                       by it of his wages or remuneration."         (1) [1967]1 S.C,R. 679 (682).         681             A  post, it was explained, exists apart from the  holder         of  the post. "A post may be created before the  appointment         or  simultaneously with it.   A post is an  employment,  but         every employment is not  a post.   A casual labourer is  not         the holder of a post.   A post under the State means a  post         under the administrative control of the State. The State may         create  or abolish the post and may regulate the  conditions         of  service of persons appointed to the post."  Turning  now         to  the rules by which the respondents were admittedly  gov-         erned,  it  appears that they contain  elaborate  provisions         controlling the appointment, leave, termination of services,         nature  of penalties, procedure for imposing  penalties  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

       other  matters relating to the conduct and service of  these         extra departmental agents.   There is a schedule annexed  to         the  rules naming the appointing authorities in  respect  of         each category of employees.   Rule 5 states that the employ-         ees governed by these rules shall be entitled to such  leave         as may be determined by the Government from time to time and         provides  that if an employee fails  to resume duty  on  the         expiry of the maximum period of leave admissible and granted         to him or if an employee who is granted leave is absent from         duty for any period exceeding the limit upto which he  could         have been granted leave he shall be removed from the service         unless  the Government decides otherwise in the  exceptional         circumstances  of  any particular case.    The  services  of         employees who had not put in more than three years’ continu-         ous  service are liable to be terminated at any  time  under         rule  6  for unsatisfactory work or for  any  administrative         reason.  The  rules also indicate the  nature  of  penalties         which  may be imposed on an employee and the  procedure  for         imposing  them.   A right of appeal is provided  against  an         order  imposing  any  of   the penalties  on  the  employee.         Various  other  conditions of service are also  provided  in         these rules.             It is thus clear that an extra departmental agent is not         a casual worker but he holds a post under the administrative         control of  the State.   It is apparent from the rules  that         the  employment of an extra departmental agent is in a  post         which exists "apart from" the person who happens to fill  it         at any particular’ time.  Though such a post is outside  the         regular civil services, there is no doubt it is a post under         the  State.    The tests of a civil post laid down  by  this         Court  in  Kanak Chandra Dutta’s case  (supra)  are  clearly         satisfied in the case of the extra departmental agents.             For the appellants it is contended that the relationship         between  the postal authorities and the  extra  departmental         agents is not of master and servant, but really of principal         and  agent.  The difference between the relations of  master         and servant and principal and agent was pointed out by  this         Court  in Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. v. The  Gov-         ernment  of  Hyderabad. (1)  On page 401 of the  report  the         following  lines from Halsbury’s Laws of  England  (Hailsham         edition)  Volume  1, at page 193, article 345,  were  quoted         with approval in explaining the difference:         (1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 393.         682                             "An agent is to be distinguished on  the                       one hand from a servant, and on the other from                       an  independent  contractor.  A  servant  acts                       under  the direct control and  supervision  of                       his  master,  and is bound to conform  to  all                       reasonable  orders given him in the course  of                       his  work, an independent contractor,  on  the                       other  hand,  is entirely independent  of  any                       control or interference and merely  undertakes                       to  produce a specified result, employing  his                       own  means to produce that result.  An  agent,                       though  bound  to exercise  his  authority  in                       accordance with all lawful instructions  which                       may  be given to him from time to time by  his                       principal,  is not subject in its exercise  to                       the  direct  control  or  supervision  of  the                       principal. An agent, as such is not a servant,                       but  a servant is generally for some  purposes                       his master’s implied agent, the extent of  the                       agency  depending upon the duties or  position                       of the servant."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

           The  rules make it clear that these  extra  departmental         agents work’ under the direct control and supervision of the         authorities  who  obviously have the right  to  control  the         manner in which they must carry out theft duties.  There can         be  no doubt therefore that the  relationship   between  the         postal authorities and the extra departmental agents is  one         of master and servant.  Reliance was placed on behalf of the         appellants  on two decisions, one of the Orissa  High  Court         Venkata  Swamy  v. Superintendent, Post Offices(1)  and  the         other  of the Madras High Court V. Subbaravalu  v.  Superin-         tendent  of  Post Offices.(2)  The judgment in  these  cases         were  rendered  before the  elaborate  rules  governing  the         conduct and service of these extra departmental agents  were         brought  into operation in 1964.  We do not therefore  think         an  examination of these two decisions will be  relevant  or         useful for disposing of the appeals before us.             The  appeals are accordingly dismissed with  costs:  one         set o[ hearing fee in respect of all the appeals except C.A.         1172  of  1972 C.A. 1751 of 1972 and C.A. 2275  of  1972  in         which separate orders as to costs was made earlier.         S.R.                                       Appeals dismissed          (1) AIR 1957 Orissa 112.          (2) AIR 1961 Madras 166.         683