JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. These two petitions have been preferred against the impugned award dated 8.9.2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I Chandigarh in case No. ID/99/2013 (Annexure P-2), therefore they are being taken up together. In CWP No.1277 of 2016, the petitioner Arvind Kumar (claimant before the tribunal) has been denied reinstatement in service w.e.f. the date of alleged retrenchment, i.e., 01.11.2012 hence the petition. Whereas in CWP No.4451 of 2015 the petitioners therein (respondents before the tribunal) are aggrieved by the grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement to the respondent therein i.e Arvind Kumar (claimant before the tribunal). 2. The admitted facts in the case at hand are that one Sh. Dharmoo had joined as a Gramin Dak Sevak (Mail Deliverer) in the Head Post Office, Hamirpur. A request to permit the petitioner Arvind Kumar in CWP No.1277 of 2016 to work as his substitute had been made by Dharmoo Ram. The requests so made are evident from Annexure R-3 (Pages 68 to 84 of the paper book). In pursuance to the aforesaid requests the petitioner was permitted to work as a substitute of Sh. Dharmoo Ram. The petitioner continued to perform the duties of a substitute in place of Dharmoo Ram between the period 6.12.2006 till 30.11.2011. The aforesaid engagement was terminated on 1.12.2011 when the regular incumbent, Sh. Dharmoo Ram, joined back on duty. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, a reference dated 5.9.2013 made in pursuance to a claim of reinstatement by the present petitioner in CWP No.1277 of 2016 (Arvind Kumar) was considered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh. The same after considering the pleadings and evidence on record was rejected, as according to the Tribunal, the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement could not be allowed since the regular incumbent (Dharmoo Ram) had rejoined duty and there was no post available. However, in lieu of reinstatement, the petitioner was awarded a suitable compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The appointment of Extra Departmental personnel is peculiar to the Post and Telegraph Department. They were initially governed by the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 ('PTEDA Rules' for short). 50,000/-. 4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The appointment of Extra Departmental personnel is peculiar to the Post and Telegraph Department. They were initially governed by the Posts and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 ('PTEDA Rules' for short). The Supreme Court has noticed the position and status of these agents in Union of India v. Kameshwar Prasad, (1997) 11 SCC 650 as under:- 2. The Extra Departmental Agents system in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is in vogue since 1854. The object underlying it is to cater to postal needs of the rural communities dispersed in remote areas. The system avails of the services of schoolmasters, shopkeepers, landlords and such other persons in a village who have the faculty of reasonable standard of literacy and adequate means of livelihood and who, therefore, in their leisure can assist the Department by way of gainful avocation and social service in ministering to the rural communities in their postal needs, through maintenance of simple accounts and adherence to minimum procedural formalities, as prescribed by the Department for the purpose. [See: Swamy’s Compilation of Service Rules for Extra Departmental Staff in Postal Department p. 1.] 6. The difference between the relations of master and servant and principal and agent was pointed out by the apex Court in Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal and Son Ltd. v. Government of Hyderabad AIR 1954 SC 364 . On p. 401 of the report the following lines from Halsbury’s Laws of England (Hailsham Edn.) Volume 1, at p. 193, Article 345, were quoted with approval in explaining the difference: “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 to him in the course of his work; and 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, 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.” 7. After considering difference between the relations of master and servant and principal and agent as pointed out by the apex Court in Lakshminarayan Ram Gopal (supra) and after taking into account the 'PTEDA Rules' by which the Extra Departmental Agents in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were admittedly governed in Supdt. of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma, (1977) 3 SCC 94 it was held that the Rules make it clear that the extra departmental agents work under the direct control and supervision of the authorities and the authorities have the right to control the manner in which they must carry out their duties. Therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop the apex court concluded that the relationship between the postal authorities and the extra departmental agents is one of master and agent. 8. Besides the aforesaid in Supdt. of Post Offices (Supra) the apex court after considering tests of a civil post laid down by the Supreme Court in Kanak Chandra Dutta case AIR 1967 SC 884 held that since the same are clearly satisfied in the case of the extra departmental agents therefore, they were held to be holders of a civil post. The relevant extract in this respect is being reproduced herein below:- 3. This Court in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta 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 provisions 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 regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. . . . This Court observed: ... a civil post means a post not connected with defence and outside the regular 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 existence 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.” 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 governed, it appears that they contain elaborate provisions controlling the appointment, leave, termination of services, nature of penalties, procedure for imposing penalties and 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 employees 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’ continuous 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. The services of employees who had not put in more than three years’ continuous 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. 4. 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 case are clearly satisfied in the case of the extra departmental agents. 9. In the aforesaid backdrop the apex court in Y. Najithamol v. Soumya S.D., (2016) 9 SCC 352 held that the post of a Gramin Dak Sevak is not in the regular service of the Postal Department, though it was held to be a civil post. The relevant extract whereof reads as under; 17. A perusal of the above judgments of this Court make it clear that extra-departmental agents are not in the regular service of the Postal Department, though they hold a civil post. Thus, by no stretch of imagination can the post of GDS be envisaged to be a feeder post to Group C posts for promotion. 10. Presently the Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 hold the field. Thus, by no stretch of imagination can the post of GDS be envisaged to be a feeder post to Group C posts for promotion. 10. Presently the Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020 hold the field. Therein below rule 2(k) is appended a note whereby a Gramin Dak Sevak engaged under the previous rules of 1964,2001 and 2011 are deemed to have been engaged to and hold the posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks in accordance with the rules promulgated in 2020.The note reads as follow-: NOTE I - The persons holding the posts of Extra- Departmental Agents under the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct & Service; Rules, 1964 or Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001 or Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 on regular basis on the date of commencement of these rules shall be deemed to have been engaged to and hold the posts of Gramin Dak Sevaks in accordance with the provisions of these rules. 11. The relevant Rule 3-A of the 2020 Rules, which lays down the terms and conditions of their engagement, reads as follows:- 3-A Terms and Conditions of Engagement:- (i) A Sevak shall not be required to perform duty beyond a maximum period of 5 hours in a day. (ii) A Sevak shall not be retained beyond 65 years of age. (iii) A Sevak shall have to give an undertaking that he has other sources of income besides the allowances paid or to be paid by the Government for adequate means of livelihood for himself and his family. (iv) A Sevak can be transferred from one post/unit to another post unit in public interest/administrative//vigilance ground; (v) A Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union. (iv) A Sevak can be transferred from one post/unit to another post unit in public interest/administrative//vigilance ground; (v) A Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union. (vi) A Sevak shall not claim to be at par with the Central Government employees (vii) Residence in post village/delivery jurisdiction of the Post Office within one month after selection but before engagement shall be mandatory for a Sevak; Failure to reside in place of duty for GDS BPM & within delivery jurisdiction of the Post Office for other categories of Gramin Dak Sevaks after engagement shall be treated as violative of conditions of engagement and liable for disciplinary action under RuIe 10 of the Conduct & Engagement Rules, requiring removal/dismissal (viii) Post Office shall be located in the accommodation to be provided by Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster suitable for use as Post Office premises. However, where accommodation is provided for Post Offices by the Central/State Government/local Government/Village Panchayat etc. the same will be used for Post Office premises. (ix) Combination of duties of a Sevak shall be permissible 12. A reading of Rule 3-A(iii) of the 2020 Rules, makes it abundantly clear that a Gramin Dak Sevaks must have an independent means of livelihood. The Gramin Dak Sevaks are engaged on a part-time basis for a maximum of 5 hours a day. Rule 3-A(v) and (vi) stipulate that a Gramin Sevak shall be outside the Civil Service of the Union, and shall not claim to be at par with the servants of the Government. 13. With respect to appointment of a substitute during leave of a Gramin Dak Sevak Rule 5 of the P&T ED Agents (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 corresponding to Rule 7 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 stipulated the following: “During leave, every GDS should arrange for his work being carried on by a substitute who should be a person approved by the authority competent to sanction leave to him. Such approval should be obtained in writing” and that: “It is necessary for the appointing authority to ensure that such a substitute is not allowed to work indefinitely. If the absence from duty of the regular GDS is likely to last indefinitely, the appointing authority should take immediate steps to make regular appointment and the person so appointed need not necessarily be the substitute.” 14. If the absence from duty of the regular GDS is likely to last indefinitely, the appointing authority should take immediate steps to make regular appointment and the person so appointed need not necessarily be the substitute.” 14. Presently Rule-7 has been amended by incorporating Rule 7-A and 7-B in connection with 5 days Emergency Leave to GDS and 180 days Maternity Leave to Female GDS under the 2020 Rules. There is now no provision for a substitute arrangement to be made by the GDS when he/she proceeds on leave. The new rules read as under. 7-A Emergency Leave :- Gramin Dak Sevaks shall be entitled for 'Emergency' leave for a maximum of 5 days in a calendar year, or as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. 7-B Maternity Leave for Female GDS,- A female Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) with Iess than two surviving children may be granted maternity leave by an authority competent to grant leave for a period of 180 days from the date of its commencement, as per instructions issued by the Department from time to time. 15. The writ petitioner had worked as a substitute from 6.12.2006 till 30.11.2011. During the aforesaid period and at the time of filing the CWP, Rule 7 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 was in vogue. Besides the aforesaid rule in the case at hand, it would be relevant to refer to Annexure P-3, i.e., the guidelines for regulating substitute/provisional arrangements made in place of a regular Gramin Dak Sevak dated 21-10-2002. When a Gramin Dak Sevak appointed by the Department proceeds on leave, such Gramin Dak Sevak is permitted to make a temporary arrangement by appointing any one of his choice as a substitute until he returns from leave. The substitute appointment is sporadic, depending on the period during which the regularly appointed employee is on leave for whatsoever reason. In fact having regard to the peculiar nature of the Gramin Dak Sevaks appointment, when they apply for leave, they have to give the name and particulars of the substitutes who will discharge their duties during the leave period. Such substitute appointments are not made by department but by the Gramin Dak Sevaks themselves (subject to approval by the department.) 16. Such substitute appointments are not made by department but by the Gramin Dak Sevaks themselves (subject to approval by the department.) 16. Admittedly, the petitioner Arvind Kumar was working as substitute/nominee of Dharmoo Ram and he cannot claim continuation in service as a matter of right. Besides the aforesaid, the appointment to the post in question is governed by the rules. The rules do not permit absorption of a nominated Gramin Dak Sevak (Mail Deliverer). 17. A substitute appointment during the period when the regularly appointed employee is on leave is only an arrangement between the original incumbent and the substitute. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to get any termination notice. Besides the ld. Counsel for the petitioner could not place reliance on any rule to show that even a substitute/nominee is required to be given a notice of termination. 18. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid facts and the settled position of law, no ground for interference is made out in the impugned award dated 8.9.2015 as the petitioner, being only a substitute/nominee, had no vested right to seek reinstatement. Keeping in view the nature of position and status of these Extra Departmental agents the award of compensation does not call for any interference. Consequently, the writ petition of the UOI is dismissed, being devoid of merit and the one filed by Arvind Kumar is allowed to the extent of interest on the awarded amount. 19. Since the award was passed way back on 08.09.2015 and has remained stayed at the instance of the Union of India, we deem it fit that the said amount will carry 7% simple interest from 08.11.2015 as the said amount was payable within two months and the GDS substitute has been deprived of the said amount for all the long period. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.