Gopi V.N & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Applicants had commenced their career as Gramin Dak Sevak; later all of them were appointed as MTS/Postman or as Mail Guard. Applicant nos.1 to 5 have already retired from service. The 6^th applicant is continuing in service. The grievance of the applicants is that neither their past service as GDS was reckoned for pension nor the respondents considered the representations moved by applicant nos.1 to 5 for relaxation of rules as provided under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Now by virtue of the decision in Union of India and Others v. Gandiba Behera (2019 SCC online SC 1444), they have realised that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that GDS service cannot be reckoned for pension. But they are more aggrieved by the acts of the respondents to rejecting their representations for relaxation of Rules and to grant them pension and to take them under the Old Pension Scheme. By Annexure A-2 and A-3 communications, their representations were rejected. According to the applicants, Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, clearly provides that such a power has to be exercised by the Ministry or Department of the Government. But Annexures A-2 and A-3 are issued by the 3^rd respondent Superintendent; hence they are sought to be quashed and to direct the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Annexure A-1 to Annexure A1(C) representations on merit.

The respondents filed a reply statement contending that Applicant Nos.1 to 5 though were initially appointed as GDS, were later posted as M.T.S/Postman in Vadakara Postal Division on 11.3.2010, 12.3.2009, 12.12.2009, 26.3.2010/with notional effect from 23.3.2009 and 1.11.2009 respectively. They have retired from service on 31.3.2017, 30.11.2016, 30.9.2017, 31.8.2017 and 31.5.2019 respectively. The 6^th applicant also was initially appointed as GDS BPM, was later appointed as Mail Guard, RMS CT Division. Now on promotion, he has been appointed as Sorting Assistant.

According to them, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in Annexure R-1 judgment, Gandiba Behera quoted supra, that the spell of service rendered as GDS cannot be reckoned for pension. Similar view has been taken by this Tribunal also in Annexure R-3 order dated 30.10.2019 in O.A 259/2015. Similarly, referring to Annexure R-2 communication dated 25.11.2020, it is pointed out that the Department of Posts had considered the question of granting relaxation under Rule 88 , but the Postal Service Board by its decision dated 25.09.2020 has decided not to grant any such relaxation. In the light of the above, the Original Application is sought to be dismissed.

Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

Evidently, the applicant nos.1 to 5 had commenced service in the GDS cadre and later were appointed in the Postal Service during 2009-2010, long after the introduction of National Pension System. Similarly, 6^th applicant though had commenced service as a GDS, was appointed as Mail Guard only on 5.7.2014. The Old Pension Scheme had come to an end on 31.12.2003. Therefore the applicants who are regularly appointed in the Postal Department during 2009-2010 and 2014 cannot claim the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme.

From the averments in the Original Application itself, it is clear that they are aware of the decision of the Apex Court in Gandiba Behera so that the order of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal to the contrary cannot hold good.

The remaining question is whether applicant nos.1 to 5 are entitled to get relaxation under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The grievance of the applicants is that Annexures A-2 and 3 were passed by an incompetent authority and therefore, they seek a direction to the first respondent to consider the question again. But Annexure R-2 communication dated 25.11.2020 gives a complete answer to this question as well. In Gandiba Behera, quoted supra (Annexure R-1), the Supreme Court had directed the Ministry concerned to consider whether minimum qualifying service rules can be relaxed in appropriate cases under Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules. Annexure R-2 indicates that this question was specifically addressed by the Postal Services Board on 25.09.2020 and took a decision on the following lines:

As indicated earlier, the applicants had commenced regular service long after the date of expiry of the Old Pension Scheme. In view of the decision taken by the Postal Services Board, which is very clear, the question of giving a further direction to the first respondent for invoking Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 does not arise.

The Original Application lacks merits and is dismissed. No costs.

Annexure A1- True copy of the representation dated 28.12.2018 submitted by the 1^st applicant to the 2^nd respondent

Annexure A1(a)- True copy of the representation dated 17.3.2020 submitted by the 2^nd applicant to the 1^st respondent

Annexure A1(b)- True copy of the representation dated 17.3.2020 submitted by the 3^rd applicant to the 1^st respondent

Annexure A1(c)- True copy of the representation dated 17.3.2020 submitted by the 4^th applicant to the 1^st respondent

Annexure A2- True copy of order No.E/55/2021-22 dated 12.5.2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent to the 1^st and 5^th applicants

Annexure A3- True copy of the order No.E/55/2021-22 dated 24.5.2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent to the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th applicants

Annexure R1- A true photocopy of the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8497/2019 dated 08.11.2019

Annexure R2- A true photocopy of decision of PSB

Annexure R3- A true photocopy of the judgment in OA 180/00259/2015 of this Hon'ble Court dated 30.10.2019

….