Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Union on behalf of the Extra Departmental Post Masters and the Extra Departmental Delivery Agents, who have been re-designated as Gramina Dak Sevaks, who are the employees of the postal department, posted in the villages. The Gramina Dak Sevaks are having the status of civil servants. There are nearly three lakh employees all over India, of whom, 25,000 have been posted in the State of Tamilnadu. 3. It has been further stated that there are three major Unions representing the Gramina Dak Sevaks, namely, the All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees Union, the National Union of Extra Departmental agents and the Bharathiya Extra Departmetal Employees Union. By G.O.No.13-31/98-SR, dated 16. 2000, the first respondent had found the said three Unions to be eligible for participation in the process of reverification for the grant of recognition. By an order No.13-2/2000-SR, dated 22. 2000, the first respondent had directed, in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Training, that the trade union facilities would be extended to the Petitioner Union in respect of the following matters 1) Channel of communication. 2) Meetings with Senior Officers. 3) Office accommodation, subject to availability. On the basis of the said order, the petitioner Union has been attending meetings with senior officers, including the second respondent and it has been receiving copies of circulars relevant to the Gramina Dak Sevaks. They have also been provided with office accommodation at Kallakurichi Head Post Office. 4. It has been further stated that the re-verification process is relevant for the purpose of recognition of a service association in terms of Extra Departmental Agents (Recognition of Service Assessment) Rules, 1995. Even as the said process was in progress the first respondent had issued an order, dated 10. 2002, circulated vide letter of the second respondent, dated 111. 2002, directing that the Gramina Dak Sevaks are not entitled to trade union facilities since they are extendable only to regular Central Government servants. Following the said order, the first and the second respondents have stopped holding meetings with all the Unions, including the petitioner Union. 2002, circulated vide letter of the second respondent, dated 111. 2002, directing that the Gramina Dak Sevaks are not entitled to trade union facilities since they are extendable only to regular Central Government servants. Following the said order, the first and the second respondents have stopped holding meetings with all the Unions, including the petitioner Union. This has resulted in grave hardship as the channel for redressing the grievances of the Gramina Dak Sevaks has been blocked, adversely affecting the basic rights of the Gramina Dak Sevaks. Therefore, the impugned orders relating to letter No.9-7/2002-SR, dated 10. 2002, issued by the first respondent, circulated vide letter, dated 111. 2002, by the second respondent, are arbitrary and illegal. In such circumstances, the petitioner Union has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the averments made on behalf of the petitioner Union. It has been stated that the Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi, had issued the impugned order, dated 10. 2002, to the Chief Post Master General, Chennai, clarifying that service associations of the Gramina Dak Sevaks are not entitled to trade union facilities, in view of the clarification received from the Department of Personnel and Training. Trade Union facilities are extendable only to the regular Central Government servants. The said order had been communicated to all the Post Master Generals in Tamilnadu circle and they have, in turn, communicated the same to the Divisional Superintendents. Pursuant to the said communication, the second respondent, vide his letter, dated 111. 2002, has communicated the impugned order. 6. It has been further stated that there is no illegality in the clarification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training. The order, dated 10. 2002, as communicated by the second respondent, vide his letter, dated 111. 2002, is not violative of any of the provisions of the Constitution. It has also been submitted that the impugned order, dated 10. 2002, was issued in the context of the issues raised in the suit O.S.No.259 of 2002, filed by one of the Gramina Dak Sevaks Union, before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry, wherein, the issue regarding the extension of trade union facilities to Gramina Dak Sevaks had been raised. 2002, was issued in the context of the issues raised in the suit O.S.No.259 of 2002, filed by one of the Gramina Dak Sevaks Union, before the II Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry, wherein, the issue regarding the extension of trade union facilities to Gramina Dak Sevaks had been raised. The basic objective behind issuing the impugned order was to intimate the views of the Government with regard to the extension of trade union facilities to Gramina Dak Sevaks. 7. It has been further submitted that, in the months of Decemer 2002 and January 2003, the issue regarding the extension of trade union facilities to the Unions representing Gramina Dak Sevaks had been examined, comprehensively, and it has been decided to restore the facilities to the recognised Gramina Dak Sevaks Unions, vide letter No.9-7/2002-SR, dated 11. 2003. The said decision had also been communicated to the Post Master Generals and the field units/post offices. As such the facilities enjoyed by the Gramina Dak Sevaks unions stand restored in so far as the recognised Gramina Dak Sevaks Unions are concerned. The only recognised Gramina Dak Sevaks Union in the Department is the All India Postal Extra Departmental Agents Union. Since the petitioner Union is not a recognised Union the benefits of the letter, dated 11. 2003, cannot be extended to the said Union. 8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that even an unrecognised Trade Union is entitled to meet and discuss with the management/employer about the grievances of any individual employee, who is a member of the said Union, relating to his service conditions. Thus, the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Chairman, SBI and another Vs. All Orissa State Bank Officers Association and others (2002)5 SCC 669 . 9. On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that there are certain conditions laid down by the Extra Departmental Agents (Recognition of Service Assessment) Rules, 1995, for the recognition of an Association of employees. Rule 5 of the said Rules lays down the conditions subject to which the recognition already granted for an Association would be continued. Accordingly, the petitioner Union is not entitled to the recognition and the consequent facilities which are, normally, extended to a recognised Union or Association. 10. Rule 5 of the said Rules lays down the conditions subject to which the recognition already granted for an Association would be continued. Accordingly, the petitioner Union is not entitled to the recognition and the consequent facilities which are, normally, extended to a recognised Union or Association. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner Union, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown suffcient cause or reason for this Court to grant the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petition. 11. It is clear that the petitioner Union has to satisfy the conditions laid down by the Extra Departmental Agents (Recognition of Service Assessment) Rules, 1995, to get the status of a recognised Union. Since the petitioner Union has not shown that it has fulfilled the necessary requirements, as provided under the said Rules, a direction cannot be issued by this Court to the respondents to treat it as a recognised Union and to provide the facilities, which are extended to recognised Unions or Associations. However, there may not be any impediment or reservation on the part of the respondents to hold discussions or negotiations with the petitioner Union, with regard to the grievances of its members, in view of the decision of the Supreme court in the case cited supra. In case of any difficulty that the petitioner Union may encounter with regard to such matters, it would be open to the petitioner Union to agitate the same before the appropriate authority, in the manner known to law. With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.