AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A)
Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:
“(a)To hold that in terms of Rule 44 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 applicant is entitled for fixation of his pension on the basis of 10 months average emoluments drawn by him before his retirement date of 31.07.2025 instead of working out his pension on the basis of last pay drawn by him in the cadre Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices for the month of July 2025.
(b)Direct the respondents to issue revised PPO forthwith sanctioning monthly pension of Rs.69550/- from 01.08.2025 and to release the pensionary benefits accordingly.
(c)Pass any other order or direction that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem it fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice and equity.
The facts in a nutshell are as follows: According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the applicant joined Department of Posts as ‘Postal Assistant’ on 29.07.1991. He went to field service in Army Postal Service, where he worked from 28.02.1996 till 31.05.2025. During his service of over 29 years in Army Postal Service (APS), he was promoted as ‘Inspector of Posts’ on 01.10.2007 and as ‘Assistant Superintendent of Posts’ on 31.12.2015. He returned to his parent department on 04.06.2025, and applied for VRS under FR 56 (k), which was accepted with effect from 31.07.2025.
The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the pension of the applicant has to be fixed under Rule 44 (1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 2021, according to which pension has to be calculated at 50% of the emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to the applicant. However, in violation of this rule, instead of calculating his pension on the basis of last ten months average emoluments, the Respondents have fixed it on the basis of last pay drawn. Hence, he has approached this Hon’ble Tribunal for relief.
3. Applicant
The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant joined the Postal Department as Postal Assistant on 29.07.1991 and took voluntary retirement on 31.07.2025. The applicant was on field duty in Army Postal Service from 28.02.1996 till 31.05.2025 when he was relieved on attainment of maximum retainable age of 57 years in APS. While serving in APS, the applicant applied for VRS on 28.03.2025, which was declined vide postal authority’s communication bearing No: X-07/15/2023-SPN-II-DOP dated 07.04.2025 stating that VRS is not acceptable while serving in APS.
The learned counsel for the applicant contends that Government letter No. 26-21/87-PEN dated 13.12.1988 (Annexure A-5) is still in force and accordingly he had applied for VRS, while in APS. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents have justified their refusal to permit VRS while serving in APS on the basis of three letters of the Government of India bearing No.: 7-4/2021-SPG dated 18.07.2023, No: R-07/2-2025-SPG-II-DOP dated 10.03.2025 and No: X-07/15/2023-SPN-II-DOP dated 07.04.2025.
The learned counsel for the applicant further points out that he was granted quasi substantive promotion to the rank of Lt. Col. in APS with effect from 12.03.2020 (Annexure A-9) and he was accordingly drawing the pay attached to the promotional grade of Lt. Col. of Rs. 1,40,500 and Military Service Pay (MSP) of Rs. 15,500 with effect from January 2025 (total equal to Rs. 1,56,000). Prior to the same, he was drawing a pay of Rs. 1,36,400 plus MSP of Rs. 15,500 from October to December 2024 (Annexure A-10).
The learned counsel for the applicant further points out that after his return from APS and reporting for duty as Assistant Superintendent of Posts in his parent department, his correct Basic Pay should have been Rs. 76,500 for June 2025, and Rs. 78,800 after grant of annual increment from July 2025 onwards, as against fixation of Rs. 70,000, which was wrongly done. He further points out that the PPO issued in July 2025 showed his last pay drawn as Rs. 78,800 only with a monthly pension of Rs. 39,400 (50% of the basic pay) which is wrong.
According to the learned counsel for the applicant, his pension should have been worked out on the basis of average pay drawn by applicant during the last ten months of service completed. He states that the pension fixation done by the respondents is in complete violation of Rule 44 (1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules which reads as follows:
"A Government servant, who retires under Rules 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 or Rule 39 after completing a qualifying service of not less than 10 years shall become eligible for grant of a pension calculated at 50% of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him subject to a minimum of Rs.9000/- per month and maximum of Rs.1,25,000/- per month."
In this regard, he has furnished the following table regarding pay fixation on the basis of last ten months emoluments which is as follows:
Last 10 Months’ Emoluments
| S. No. | Month / Particulars | Emoluments / Calculation | Remarks |
| 1 | October 2024 | Rs. 1,36,400 | Note: October 2024 to May 2025 (both months inclusive) emoluments drawn in APS as per Ann-A10 |
| 2 | November 2024 | Rs. 1,36,400 | |
| 3 | December 2024 | Rs. 1,36,400 | |
| 4 | January 2025 | Rs. 1,40,500 | |
| 5 | February 2025 | Rs. 1,40,500 | |
| 6 | March 2025 | Rs. 1,40,500 | |
| 7 | April 2025 | Rs. 1,40,500 | |
| 8 | May 2025 | Rs. 1,40,500 | |
| 9 | June 2025 | Rs. 76,500 | Emoluments drawn as ASP in Postal Department |
| 10 | July 2025 | Rs. 78,800 | |
| 08 months military service pay | Rs. 15,500 × 8 = Rs. 1,24,000 | ||
| 10 months average will work out to | Rs. 13,91,000 ÷ 10 = Rs. 1,39,100 | Hence applicant’s entitlement of monthly pension would be Rs. 1,39,100 ÷ 2 = Rs. 69,550/- As per Rule 44(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules |
The learned counsel for the applicant has cited the following rules with respect to the definition of Emoluments and Average Emoluments:
Rule 31 Emoluments: The expression ‘emoluments’ mean basic pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules 1922 which a Govt. Servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death and will also include non-practicing allowances granted to a Medical Officer in lieu of private practice.
Rule 32 (1) Average Emoluments shall be determined with reference to the emoluments drawn by a Govt. servant during the last ten months of his service.
He further points out that he has applied for VRS under Rule 56 (k) of FR and Rule 43 (1) / 43 (4) (a) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 which reads as follows:
FR 56 (k) (1): Any Govt. servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority retire from service after he has attained the age of 50 years, if he is in Gr. 'A' or Gr. 'B' service or post (and had entered Govt. service before attaining the age of 35 years), and in all other cases after he has attained the age of 55 years.
(Note: Applicant's date of birth is 01.06.1968 and is more than 55 years old as on the date of making the application Ann-A1)
Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021: Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service:
1)At any time after a Govt. servant has completed 20 years qualifying service, he may by giving notice of not less than 03 months in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service and in the case of such retirement, the Govt. servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension calculated in accordance with Rule 44.
(4)(a): A Govt. servant referred to in sub-rule (i) may make a request in writing to the Appointing Authority to accept notice of Voluntary Retirement of less than 03 months giving reasons therefor.
He further states that in the light of above rules, the applicant has submitted retirement notice on 18.07.2025 with effect from 31.07.2025 as per Rule (4) (a) cited above. In this regard he also cites Rule 34 of the CCS (Pension) Rules which reads as:
Rule 34 (1) states that "A retiring pension or retiring service gratuity, as the case may be, shall be granted in accordance with rule 44, to a Govt. Servant who retires on his own volition, before attaining the age of superannuation, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 43 of these rules or Rule 56 of the FR.
He concludes by stating that in view of the above facts and circumstances, he has asked to direct the respondents to issue revised PPO sanctioning monthly pension at the rate of Rs. 69,550 from 01.08.2025 by upholding Rule 44 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 regarding fixation of pension on the basis of ten months’ average emoluments.
4. Reply
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed the reply.
The learned counsel for the respondents has essentially reiterated regarding the service particulars of the applicant in the initial paras. He has further stated that the applicant was repatriated from APS to Department of Posts on reaching the age of retirement in APS and then posted as Assistant Superintendent of Posts vide RO letter No. NKR/STA-2/309/2025 dated 15.05.2025, where he joined on 04.06.2025. He immediately applied for VRS which was approved and he relinquished charge on VRS on 31.07.2025. His pension papers were processed strictly as per CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 read with OM No. R-07/2/2025-SPG-II-DOP dated 10.03.2025 issued by Postal Directorate (Annexure A-7). Accordingly, his pension was sanctioned at the rate of 50% of the last pay drawn as on 31.07.2025 (Rs. 78,800 in the level 8 of pay matrix) which comes to Rs. 39,400 with effect from 01.08.2025 vide PPO No. POSTAL/2025/KA/28464 dated 14.11.2025. Subsequently, the applicant has submitted application no. DOPPW/W/2025/0087159 on the Public Grievance Portal (PG Portal) requesting to calculate pension on the average of emoluments drawn by him over the last 10 months of his service. His representation was transferred by Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 2 and is under consideration.
Defending the action of the respondents regarding his repatriation from APS to the parent department, the learned counsel for the respondents places reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kunal Nanda vs. UOI & Anr. [(2000) 5 SCC 362] which states as follows:
"the basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation.”
Refuting the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the pension of the applicant should be calculated on the basis of pay he was drawing in APS, the learned counsel for the respondents has places reliance on the following judgements:
Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in Civil Appeal 8139/2019 (UOI & Ors. vs. Lt Col O M Dutt Sharma (retd) dead through LRS & Ors.
Lt. Col. Shaji Joseph (Retd.) vs. Union of India & Ors. (In Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No. 1239 of 2020).
Major MR Penghal vs. UOI [AIR 1999 SC 543].
He has also invited my attention to notification dated 20.12.2021 which states as follows:
“MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare) NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 20th December, 2021 “…………………… 31………………….
(7)Pay drawn by a Government servant while on deputation to a State Government or while on foreign service shall not be treated as emoluments, but the pay which he would have drawn under the Central Government had he not been on deputation to the State Government or on foreign service shall alone be treated as emoluments. ……………………..”
He has also places reliance on CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 read with PM No R-07/2/2025-SPG-II-DOP dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure-A7) issued by Postal Directorate. As per Para 4(iv) of the above OM "APS officers granted quasi-substantive ranks in the Army will hold such ranks for so long as they are serving in APS. Officers will have no claim to any benefits by virtue of holding the same on reversion to the parent cadre".
The learned counsel for the respondents states that the substantive post of the applicant at the time of VR was ASP and accordingly the pension of the applicant has been calculated at 50% of emoluments in the substantive cadre (Rs.78800/- in the level 8 of the Pay Matrix) in accordance with Rule 44(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 as it was more beneficial to the applicant than the 50% of average emoluments calculated by the pay in the substantive cadre for last 10 months from 01.10.2024 to 31.07.2025 [(76500*9+78800*1)/10=76730].
5. Rejoinder
In response to the reply filed by the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicant has filed a rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has essentially reiterated the facts which are already mentioned in the OA. However, the important points mentioned in the rejoinder are summarized as below:
While the relief claimed by the applicant is strictly as per Rule 44 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 which entitles him pension of Rs. 69,550 per month with effect from 01.08.2025, the learned counsel for the respondents has not refuted the same. He has made a broad generalized statement that the pension was fixed in terms of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 without indicating the relevant clause.
The crux of the matter is regarding the applicability of Rule 44(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 which clearly indicates that average of emoluments of last 10 months preceding retirement should be factored for calculation of pension.
The learned counsel for the respondents has not refuted the applicability of Circular No. 26-21/87-PEN dated 13.12.1988 (Annexure A-5) which therefore continues to be applicable to all concerned including the applicant.
The learned counsel for the applicant has also stated that the pension on the basis of average emoluments of last 10 months has been calculated and is being given in several other similarly situated cases. In this regard, he has cited the example in the case of Sri. R. Sanjay, letter dated 04.12.2025 has been issued by Postal Authority of West Bengal Circle and also reply from APS Accounts Section Nagpur vide letter dated 20.01.2026 cited as Annexures RJ-1 and RJ-2.
6. Additional Reply
In response to the rejoinder filed by learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents has also filed additional reply in which he has essentially reiterated the arguments which had already been covered in the reply. He has once again drawn my attention to Para 4 (iv) of the OM No. R-07/2/2025-SPG-II-DOP dated 10.03.2025 issued by Postal Directorate.
Defending the action of the respondents regarding calculation of the pension of the applicant at 50% of last pay drawn in substantive post on the date of his relinquishing charge, he has once again reiterated that the same was carried out in accordance with CCS (Pension) Rules 2021.
He also points out that Rule 31 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 speaks about the emoluments that the Government Servant was receiving immediately before his retirement only. Further, Rule 31 (6) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 refers to pay drawn by a Government servant while on deputation to an ex-cadre post in the same or some other Department of the Govt. or to the Armed Forces of India as emoluments but does not clarify whether pay drawn while on deputation to Army Postal Service can be considered for calculation of average emoluments and pension.
In the absence of any specific mention regarding calculation of pension on the basis of pay drawn while on deputation to Army Postal Service for calculation of average emoluments, there is no question of deviating from the extant rules. He has specifically submitted written notes of arguments on 12.10.2026 wherein he has cited Rule 31 (7) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 which reads as follows:
“Pay drawn by a Government Servant while on deputation to a State Government or while on Foreign Service shall not be treated as emoluments, but the pay which he would have drawn in the parent department had he not been on deputation to State Government or on Foreign Service shall alone be treated as emoluments.”
He has further stated that an employee of the Department of Posts for serving in APS on deputation basis does not acquire status of ex-servicemen or independent entitlement to pensionary benefits as applicable to Army/APS. Deputation is just a temporary transfer and the parent department continues to retain lien and administrative control over the employee who went on deputation and eventually returns to the parent unit. Hence, he is not eligible for the benefits related to the emoluments that he was drawing on deputation.
7. Conclusion:
I have heard at length the arguments of both the counsels and have also gone through all the documents and records which were brought on record by the respective counsels.
At this stage, it would be useful to go through the relevant documents/records and the judgments of the Superior Courts, which have been submitted by the rival counsel for better appreciation of the entire issue and for arriving at correct conclusion. They are reproduced as follows:
M/o Defence instructions dated 24.08.2006 (Annexure A-3)
“No. 32006/AVSC/AG/PS-2(a) Bharat Sarkar/Government of India Raksha Mantralaya/Ministry of Defence New Delhi – 110011 24th August 2006 To, The Chief of Army Staff New Delhi Sub: RESTRUCTURING OF OFFICERS' CADRE IN ARMY POSTAL SERVICE Sir, ……….
2.Promotion. Officers granted Temporary Commission in the APS will be eligible for quasi-substantive promotion to higher ranks subject to completion of the under mentioned years of qualifying service (commissioned or equivalent service) w.e.f. 16 Dec 2004:-
Rank Qualifying Service for Quasi-Substantive Promotion in APS
Capt 2 years
Major 6 years
Lt Col 13 years
Col (TS) 26 years
3.Officers granted Temporary Commission in any rank before completion of the qualifying service prescribed at Para 2 above will hold that rank in acting capacity till they are granted quasi-substantive promotion to that rank. …………………
6.APS officers granted quasi-substantive ranks in the Army will hold such ranks for so long as they are serving in APS. Officers will have no claim to any benefits by virtue of holding the same, on reversion to parent cadre. The quasi-substantive ranks granted under these orders will be treated for purposes of pay and allowances in the same manner as substantive ranks granted to permanent commissioned officers. In the absence of a higher paid acting rank, the quasi-substantive rank will be taken into account for all pensionary awards, if any. …………………………..”
D/o Posts instructions dated 13.12.1988 (Annexure A-5)
“Ministry of Communications Department of Posts Dak Tar Bhavan New Delhi – 110001 No. 26-21/87 – PEN. 13.12.1988 To, The All Heads of Circles, Sub:-Treating of Rank Pay as pay for purpose of calculation of pension in respect of Postal Officers on deputation to APS. Sir, ……………
2.It has now been decided in consultation with Deptt. of Pension and pensioners Welfare that the Rank pay drawn by Postal Officers as part of Military pay while on deputation to APS during the last ten months preceeding their date of retirement shall be reckoned as pay for purpose of computing their Civil Pension. These orders will take effect from 01.01.1986. ………………”
OM dated 18.07.2023 (Annexure A-6)
“No.7-4/2021-SPG Government of India Ministry of Communications Department of Posts (Personnel Division) Dak Bhavan Sansad Marg New Delhi-110001 Dated: 18.07.2023 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Amendment to AI 29/85 and Gol letter dated 19.03.1985 regarding Non-Regular personnel of Army Postal Service (APS). …………………
ii.Retirement while working in APS shall not be allowed. Officials (upto the rank of Lt Col) will be required to be repatriated to DoP atleast 1 year before the age of retirement in civil side/parent department or age of compulsory retirement in Army whichever is earlier.
iii.Maximum service period in APS (upto the rank of Lt Col) for DoP officials as 20 years during the entire service in Government for Commissioned officers only. not for JCOs/ORs. ……………..”
OM dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure A-7)
“No. R-07/2/2025-SPG-II-DOP Government of India Ministry of Communications Department of Posts (SPG-II Section) New Delhi, the 10th March, 2025 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Court cases in APS matters – Previous settled Judgement/Orders in favour of Department of Posts reg. …………………
iii) As per categorical instruction No.6 of terms and conditions laid down in Annexure 'A' to Al 29/85 dated 01.09.1985 (copy enclosed), "For service pension, officers will be governed by civil rules." Therefore, provision of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 shall be applicable in case of the temporary commissioned APS officials/officers.
(iv)Ministry of Defence vide letter No.32006/AVSC/AG/PS-2(a) dated 24.08.2006 (copy attached) states as follows:
"APS officers granted quasi-substantive ranks in the Army will hold such ranks for so long as they are serving in APS. Officers will have no claim to any benefits by virtue of holding the same on reversion to the parent cadre."
(v)The above applicants hold lien against civil posts in this Department, there service conditions are governed by the civil rules. The basic employment of the applicant and all conditions of service i.e. Pension, vacancy, Disciplinary rules etc. attached to his employment in this Department have continued to operate as per terms and conditions for his initial appointment. 5……………………
(iv)The Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Major M.R. Penghal v. Uol' ((1998)5SCC454) {in Civil Appeal Nos.556/1998 & 557/1998) (copy enclosed) already decided the above jurisdiction and held as under:
“…….Since the appellant was not a member of the Armed Forces and continued to work as a civilian on deputation to the Army Postal Service, his case was covered under Section 14(1)(a) of the Administrative Tribunals Act."
(v)The above settled law was again reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgement dated 05.11.2019 in CA No.8139/2019 {Uol &Ors. v. Lt. Col. OM Dutt Sharma (Retd.) dead through LRS & Ors.) (copy enclosed). In the said judgement, it is also held that: i. ".... The respondents have discharged their duties as per Army Instructions issued from time to time. If they have drawn higher salaries while working in the APS than other counterparts in the Department of Posts that will not make them at par with the members of the Armed Forces. Their birth mark is with the Department of Posts which mark was never removed, when they were serving as members of APS. The Instructions provided for an option on promotion on every rank in the Army to draw either military pay and allowances or civil pay plus deputation allowances meaning thereby that they continue to hold their lien on the civil posts in the Department of Posts. Since they hold a lien in the Department of Posts they could be recalled by the Department of Posts as well as they could seek reversion to their parent Department." ………………….
(v)Recently, the Hon'ble AFT, RB, Kochi vide order dated 01.07.2024 in OA No.13/2024 {Lt. Col. V C Paulose V/s Uol & Ors.) (copy enclosed) held that: "...Indisputably, Pension Sanctioning Authority under the Department of Posts will not come under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Therefore, we find that this Bench of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this Originai Application."
(vi)The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Kunal Nanda vs. Uol & Anr." reported in (2000) 5 SCC 362 (copy enclosed) has already held that "The basic principle underlying deputation itself is that the person concerned can always and at any time be repatriated to his parent department to serve in his substantive position therein at the instance of either of the departments and there is no vested right in such a person to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department to which he had gone on deputation."
(vii)Some temporary commissioned officials/officers of APS also raised the issue of selection "exclusively for APS appointed in the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant". In a precedent case of similarly situated persons, Hon'ble AFT, Chandigarh Bench vide order dated 23.11.2015 in OA No.4445/2013 & OA No.4449/2013 (copy attached) already held that the parent civil department of the such applicant is Department of Posts. ………………”
Order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure A-8)
“No. X-07/15/2023-SPN-II-DOP
Government of India Ministry of Communications Department of Posts
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg
New Delhi-110 001 Dated: 07-04-2025
To, The Addi DG APS, C/o 56 APO.
Subject: Notice from Shri Nagaraja Devagundi, holding temporary commission as TC-31586H Lt. Col in APS, seeking Voluntary Retirement from service-reg …………………..
4(1) There is no provision of voluntary retirement from APS in Army Instructions No. 29/85.
4(ii) As per this Department letters No. X-17/1/2018-SPB-Il dated 10.01.2019 & dated 24.01.2019 read with CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, "all appointing authorities not to accept request for voluntary retirement directly from Army Postal Service (APS) without an official being repatriated to civil side and that such request for voluntary retirement would be considered only after repatriation of the official to the parent unit in civil side."
b. It is reiterated that there is no provision of voluntary retirement in Al 29/85 including para 9(3)(d) of Al 29/85.
2.APS Directorate is therefore requested to take appropriate action accordingly.”
Part-II Order dated 13.03.2020 (Annexure A-9)
“……………. Personal No : TC-31586H Name of Officer : Nagaraj D ……………..
Ser
(01)
Casualty Code
(02)
Name of Casualty
(03)
From date Dd/mm/yy
(04)
To date Dd/mm/yy
(05)
Data 1
(06)
Date 2
(07)
Data 3
(08)
Data 4
(09)
001 SUBPROM Granted Quasi-Substantive Promotion to the Rank of Lt. Col wef 12 Mar 2020 12032020 -- -- -- -- -- Authority: GOI, MoD letter No. 32006/AVSC/AG/DS-2 (a) dt. 24 Aug 2006. ………………….”
Director of Accounts Nagpur letter dt. 24.06.2025 (Annexure A-10)
“DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS (POSTAL) BASE CIRCLE, NAGPUR-440001
No. APS-I/TC-31586H/Service Book/ Date/06/2025 ………………………. TC 31586H LT COL NAGARAJ DEVAGUNDI Details of Pay and Allowances from March 2025 (paid in April) to 31 May 2025 (A/N) The officer is drawing salary through : SBI Bank A/c No. 20244291763 IFSC Code: SBIN0005670 PAN No. AISPD0447L INCOME STATEMENT : 2025-2026 / PAY – RECOVERY PARTICULARS Emoluments
Particulars Mar 2025 Apr 2025 May 2025 Total
PAY 140500.00 140500.00 140500.00 421500.00 DA 82680.00 85800.00 85800.00 254280.00 MSP 15500.00 15500.00 15500.00 46500.00 TPTA 11016.00 11160.00 DA, TPTA ARRS 9792.00 9792.00 TOTAL 249696.00 262752.00 252960.00 765408.00 ……………………”
From the above documents brought on record, the following facts emerge:
The applicant joined Department of Posts in 1991, went on deputation to Army Postal Service in 1996 and worked there for 29 years.
During his service of 29 years in APS, he was promoted as ‘Inspector of Posts’ in 2007 and as ‘Assistant Superintendent of Posts’ in 2015.
After serving for 29 years in APS, he was relieved from there on attaining maximum retainable age of 57 years.
Thus, it is clear that in his total government service of approximately 34 years, he served in APS for 29 years which is almost 85% of his total service.
It is further seen that there is nothing brought on record that the communication vide No. 26-21/87 – PEN dated 13.12.1988 (Annexure A-5) has been withdrawn or cancelled or overruled by any further OM/communication of Department of Posts or DoPT. The learned counsel for the respondents have also neither contested nor disputed regarding the continued applicability of this communication. The relevant portions of this letter is reproduced for convenience:
“……………
2.It has now been decided in consultation with Deptt. of Pension and pensioners Welfare that the Rank pay drawn by Postal Officers as part of Military pay while on deputation to APS during the last ten months preceeding their date of retirement shall be reckoned as pay for purpose of computing their Civil Pension. These orders will take effect from 01.01.1986. ………………”
Regarding fixation of pension etc., the learned counsel for the respondents has invited my attention to OMs dated 18.07.2023, 10.03.2025, and 07.04.2025 which are cited as Annexure A-6, A-7 and A-8. The essence of these OMs is as follows:
All Government employees who were on deputation to APS will be governed by Civil Rules for service pension.
Their pension, vacancy, emoluments etc will be as per the terms and conditions of their initial appointment against civil post in his department.
As per the Judgement in “Major MR Penghal vs. UOI” cited in OM dated 10.03.2025, they can be recalled by the Department of Posts at any point of time and their cases will be governed under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act. There is no vested right in such employees to continue for long on deputation or get absorbed in the department where they have gone for deputation.
The applicant was denied VRS from APS in consonance with above cited three OMs. It is also seen that the applicant was repatriated in consonance with the above OMs. However, the learned counsel for the applicant has neither challenged rejection of the applicant’s representation for VRS from APS nor his repatriation from parent department.
The learned counsel for the applicant has simply requested for calculation of the pension of the applicant on the basis of Rule 44 (1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules which reads as follows:
"A Government servant, who retires under Rules 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 or Rule 39 after completing a qualifying service of not less than 10 years shall become eligible for grant of a pension calculated at 50% of emoluments or average emoluments, whichever is more beneficial to him subject to a minimum of Rs.9000/- per month and maximum of Rs.1,25,000/- per month."
Rule 31 Emoluments: The expression ‘emoluments’ mean basic pay as defined in Rule 9 (21) (a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules 1922 which a Govt. Servant was receiving immediately before his retirement or on the date of his death and will also include non-practicing allowances granted to a Medical Officer in lieu of private practice.
Rule 32 (1) Average Emoluments shall be determined with reference to the emoluments drawn by a Govt. servant during the last ten months of his service.
Furthermore, the average emoluments has been defined as per Annexure A-5 to be the average of the monthly emoluments drawn by the applicant over the last 10 months before his superannuation/VRS.
It is further seen that the learned counsel for the respondents has not at all rejected or refuted the applicability of Rule 31, 32 (1) and Rule 44 (1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
It is also seen that examples of similarly situated persons of Department of Posts which were given these benefits (Annexure RJ-1 and RJ-2) cited by the learned counsel for the applicant have not been refuted or contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.
It will be useful at this stage to determine the applicant’s applicability or otherwise of the judgements cited by the learned counsel for the respondents to the facts and circumstances of this case. They are delineated as follows:
In UOI & Ors. vs. Lt. Col. O M Dutt Sharma (retd.) dead through LRS & Ors. in Civil Appeal 8139/2019, the case essentially relates to sanction of one rank, one pension to the employees on deputation to APS/units of Armed Forces. In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
(i)".. The respondents have discharged their duties as per Army Instructions issued from time to time. If they have drawn higher salaries while working in the APS than other counterparts in the Department of Posts that will not make them at par with the members of the Armed Forces. Their birth mark is with the Department of Posts which mark was never removed, when they were serving as members of APS……
(iii)"the conditions show that the members of the APS continues to hold lien in the Department of Posts though they were conferred ranks in the Army and were also entitled to certain benefits as the members of the Armed Forces during the period of their Temporary Commission does not make them a pensioner of the Armed Forces...".
The facts and circumstances of this judgement are totally different from the case of the applicant. In the said judgement, the applicant had requested for parity and benefits for which Members of the Armed Forces were solely eligible and were not applicable to the applicants who were on deputation. In the present OA, the applicant has not asked for any benefit as applicable to APS or any Armed Forces.
Lt. Col. Shaji Joseph (Retd.) vs. Union of India & Ors. (In Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No. 1239 of 2020), the Court held as follows:
“………………..
27.The short question for consideration is as to whether the borrowing authority of the applicant i.e. Respondents Nos. 4,5 and 8, are duty bound to release the retirement benefits to him, as prayed by the applicant in the OA instead of Respondent No. 6 as submitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit. …………………
32.Rule 67 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 reads as under:
“67. Government Servant on deputation
(1)In the case of the Government servant who retires while on deputation to another Central Govt. Department, action to authorize pension and gratuity in accordance with the provision of this Chapter shall be taken by the Head of Office of the borrowing Department.” …………….
36.The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that it is the Respondent No. 6, who is the Competent Authority to issue pensionary benefits to the applicant, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to the declaration as stated in Para 8(i) to (iv) of the OA. Since he was only on deputation to APS, he is also not entitled either for ‘Ex-serviceman’ status or for ‘Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS)’, as prayed for. So far as his claim for interest is concerned, he is not entitled for the same as it was due to his own fault that he did not get the pensionary benefits from Respondent No. 6 and he cannot be allowed to take advantage of the same. ………………………”
From the above, it is very clear that the AFT had rejected the OA on the grounds that the applicant was only on deputation and had asked for benefits applicable for ex-serviceman status or Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme. It is again seen that in this present OA, the applicant has not asked for any benefits which are applicable to APS employees or ex-serviceman employees and therefore, this judgement is not applicable to him.
Major MR Penghal vs. UOI [AIR 1999 SC 543], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
“……………………….. 9………………We, therefore, uphold the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Since the appellant while holding civil post was working in the Army Postal Service on deputation, the Central Administrative Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain and decide the original application filed by the appellant. We accordingly set aside the order dated 31-1-1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, and remand the case to it to decide expeditiously Original Application No. 1647 of 1996 of the appellant, on merits……………..”
From the above analysis it is very clear that the judgements in the above three cases are not at all applicable to the case of the applicant. It is further seen that the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments in the court and also in his reply has stated that the representation of the applicant regarding calculation of his pension on the basis of average emoluments is presently under consideration of the respondents.
From the above facts and circumstances, it is very clear that the applicant has not asked for any benefits which are applicable for APS employees or Members of Armed Forces, which were the subject matter of above cited judgements. He has merely asked for calculation of pension on the basis of average emoluments of the last 10 months before his VRS which is strictly in consonance with the extant rules, cited above.
Thus, the OA has considerable merit. Hence, the OA is allowed. It is hereby ordered:
To consider the fixation of the applicant in terms of Rules 31, 32 read with Rule 44 (1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021, on the basis of average emoluments of last ten months drawn by him before his retirement on 31.07.2025.
To issue revised PPO after carrying out the calculation as per the extant rules cited above and to release pension benefits accordingly.
All MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
No costs.