IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 23707 of 2006(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.BAVITHA, W/O.PRADEEP, PURAYIL VEEDU, ERANHIKKAL P.O., ELATHUR VIA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH SRI.P.S.MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-20. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, STANDARD AGENCY SYSTEM (SAS), NATIONAL SAVINGS ORGANISATION, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE 20. 3. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS (DEPARTMENT OF POSTS) DAK BHAVAN, SAMSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. RAVIKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2 SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG FOR R.3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT RELATING TO APPOINTMENT OF SAS AGENTS. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2004 APPOINING PETITIONER AS SAS AGENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.8.1984 APPOINTING PETITIONER'S HUSBAND AS EXTRA DEPARTMENTAL AGENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.2006 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE LETTER NO. 107-4/2001-SB DATED 10.1.2002 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 9.8.2006 FROM THE SR. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES. 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION. EXT.R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. EXT.R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 23707 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as an agent under the Standard Agency Scheme for canvassing deposit under the Small Savings Deposit Scheme run by the Post Office. However, her appointment was cancelled for the reason that her husband was working in Post Office. Under interim orders issued by this Court, petitioner was allowed to continue her job until original period of appointment. Case of the petitioner is that her husband is only appointed as Extra-Departmental packer on a contract basis, and not a regular employee, and therefore bar does not apply to her. Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that persons similarly placed were removed and they have not contested the matter. The case of the petitioner is that even after expiry of the first period of appointment, petitioner is again selected and reappointed to work as agent. According to the petitioner disqualification is applicable only if husband or any other relative is employed as a regular employee in the Post Office which does not 2 apply to her because her husband is only an Extra-Departmental staff that too working in a post office different from the one in which petitioner is appointed as canvassing agent. It is also stated that inspite of the work done by the petitioner for several years, she was not paid commission, probably on account of pendency of the Writ Petition. I have no doubt in my mind that for the work done by the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to commission and eligible remuneration because she was allowed to continue under interim orders of this Court and even after expiry of the initial period, she was reappointed. Government Pleader pointed out that on facts there is a finding that petitioner's husband was found canvassing business for her. What is prescribed under the scheme is obviously against misuse of official position of the petitioner's husband to canvass business for her. If this is not happening, then I see no reason why petitioner should be disqualified more so because she is not involved in any fraud or misappropriation so far. In the circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the District Collector to look into the facts of the case, consider the area where from petitioner is canvassing business 3 and the place of her husband, the nature of his employment, etc and if he feels petitioner can be allowed to continue without violation of rules, he will pass orders regularising her reappointment for next term. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the District Collector for compliance. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 4