Rules, Rights & Rites -2 Extending limited trade union facilities Kudos to Jharkhand circle & Team
I usually post all important items related to official rulings, union news, and other general matters on my YouTube channels: Yourskayveeyes (English) and Anbudan Kayveeyes (Tamil).
However, due to the recent spate of orders and the high volume of information being received, I have not been able to convert every item into a video. Therefore, I am introducing these new slots to post current matters and updates that have not yet been published on YouTube. This ensures you stay informed on every detail, even if a video hasn't been made yet …………….Kayveeyes
Extending limited trade union facilities - Jharkhand High Court Judgment (W.P.(C) No.3395 of 2023)
• This is related to High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi's order dated December 6, 2025, in the case filed by the All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C' against the Union of India and the Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation (BPEF).
• The Petitioner AIPE Union Group 'C' sought the Quashing the Department of Posts' letters from 2015, 2017, and 2019 which extended limited trade union facilities to the Bhartiya Postal Employees Federation (BPEF) and its affiliated unions.
• Declaring the Department of Posts' action as illegal and arbitrary and in contravention of the Central Civil Services (Recognition of Service Association) Rules, 1993.
• Directing the Department of Posts to abstain from extending limited trade union facilities to the BPEF with immediate effect.
• The writ petition was filed by the petitioner (All India Postal Employees Union Group 'C') invoking the principle of parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 mandates that authorities must maintain rationality and equality in the reasoning process as well as in the action when giving facilities.
• Petitioner (AIPE Union Group 'C') was a recognized service association in 2019 but was de-recognized in 2023.
• Respondent No. 4 (BPEF): Has failed in the scrutiny and is not eligible for recognition.
• Both the petitioner and the private respondent (BPEF) are currently unrecognized associations.
• The Court found that both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were found disqualified for eligibility for recognition.
• Argued that the BPEF was given the facility of a recognized service association (Annexure-5, 6, 7) despite failing in scrutiny. This action of the respondent authority was discriminatory and in the teeth of Article 14 (right to equality) of the Constitution.
• The Department Opposed the petitioner's submission, stating the petitioner was de-recognized due to financial irregularities and funding the "kishan andolan" (farmer's movement).
• The UOI argued that the BPEF had no such allegations against it, although it also did not fulfill the criteria for recognition (lesser number of members). The limited facility was granted to BPEF to maintain industrial harmony.
• The UOI's counter affidavit quoted the DoP&T's advice. DoP&T clarified that under the CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993, there is no concept of limited trade union facilities.
• DoP&T stated it had no observations and that if the Department of Posts intended to give limited facilities to BPEF in the interest of maintaining industrial harmony, it was for them to take an administrative decision.
• The petitioner confined his request during arguments to the grant of limited facility. The Court noted that the Law does not permit for limited recognition or limited facility.
• The Court found that giving differential treatment to the two different associations was not justified and the reason assigned was not as per the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondents (Union of India/Department of Posts) to give similar treatment to the petitioner (AIPE Union Group 'C') which has been given to Respondent No. 4 (BPEF).
• The Court noted that the Differential treatment was given on the ground of the petitioner's alleged funding and financial misappropriation.
• Ultimately, the Court ruled that giving differential treatment to the two different associations was not justified and that the reason assigned was not as per the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
• Kudos to Com Indrajit Pandy & his team
Post a Comment