Madras High Court
Union Of India vs R.Raghavendran on 29 August, 2023
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BALAJI
W.P.No. 16721 of 2018
and
WMP.No. 19915 of 2018
1. Union of India, rep. By
Director General,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110001.
2.Postmaster General,
Western Region,
Coimbatore -641002.
3.Superintendent of Post Offices,
Salem West Postal Division,
Salem -636005. ..Petitioners
Vs
1.R.Raghavendran
2.Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench,
Rep. By its Registrar,
City Civil Court Building,
High Court, Chennai-600104. ..Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying to issue writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to the
order passed by the 2nd respondent /Tribunal in O.A.No. 1023 of 2016 dated
20.04.2017 and quash the same.
For Petitioners : Mr. Venkataswamy Babu
For Respondents: Mr.M.S.Velusamy – R1
R2 – Tribunal.
ORDER
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
Aggreived by the order passed by the 2nd respondent-Tribunal in
O.A.No. 1023 of 2016, dated 20.04.2017, the department has filed the
present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted
that the 1st respodent herein was appointed as GDS BPM on 26.05.1982 at
Veppilaipatti Branch Post Office under the control of Mangalapuram Sub
Post Office, Salem District. The 1st respondent had participated in the
Departmental comptetiive examination conducted by the 3rd petitioner on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
04.04.2004 for the post of Postman for the vacancy of the year 2002 and he
was selected on merit quota in unreserved vacancy and he was issued with
an appointment order on 30.07.2004.
3. The learned counsel has further submitted that the 1st respondent
joined service as Postman on 21.08.2004 and retired from service on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2014. After retirement from
service, the 1st respodnent made representations dated 29.12.2014 and
12.01.2016 to the 3rd petitioner requsting pensionary benefits under the old
scheme. The persons who have joined the services of the postal department
prior to 01.01.2004 are eligible for pension under the old pension scheme
under CCS Pension Rules, 1972. Since the petition has joined service as
Postman only on 21.08.2004, his request was rejected by the 3rd respondent
by order dated 25.02.2016.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that as
against the said rejection order, the 1st respondent has filed an application in
O.A.No. 1023 of 2016 before the 2nd respondent/Tribunal. The application
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
came to be allowed by the tribunal by holding that the 1st respondent was
aappointed as postmant in the vacancy that arose in the year 2002, therefore
he is eligible for pension under old pension scheme. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioners, the finding of the tribunal has no legal
basis and liable to be quashed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent has submitted
that the 1st respondent had participated in a departmental competitive
examination for promotion to the post of Postman conducted by the 3rd
petitioner on 04.04.2004 for the vacancies relating to the year 2002. His
promotion to the post of Postman against a vacancy which arose in the year
2002 is only in continuation of his service as Gramin Dak Sevak in
accordance with the recruitment rules in force and the therefore, the
judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 21193 of 2015, dated 01.03.2017 relied
upon the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of
the case .
6. According to the learnd counsel for the 1st respondent, the 1st
respondent is fully entitled to pension and other retirment benefits as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
provided under CCS (Pension )Ruels, 1972. The tribuanl has rightly
considered the rules in force and held that the 1st respondent is entitlted for
pension under old pension scheme, therefore the rejection of his claim is
totally aribitrary and illegal and the writ petiton is liable to be dismissed.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. We have perused the impugned order dated 20.04.2017 passed by
the 2nd respondent tribunal, wherein the tribunal by relying upon the
judgment of this Court in W.P.No. 21193 of 2015 dated 01.03.2017 has
concluded that “the applicant/1st respondent was entitled to be considered
for promotion as Postman for the vacancy that arose in 2002 and hence his
appointment ought to have been notionally dated back to 2002 for the
purpose of reckoning his qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
Accordingly, his pension has to be fixed on the basis of the provisions of
CCS (Pension)Rules, 1972, not based on the amendemnt dated
01.01.2004.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
9. The tribunal in the said findings held that since the vacancy was
arose as early in the year 2002, the 1st respondent who was appointed in the
said vacancy was entitled to be considered for promotion as Postman with
effect from the year 2002. In our view, the said findings of the tribunal
cannot be accepted as the same was held without considering the vital point
that the 1st respondent was not promoted as postman, he was only appointed
in the said post in the existing vacancy.
10. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent during the course of
arguments drew attention of this Court by submitting an Official
Memorandum dated 03/03/2023 issued by the Government of India,
Minsitry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of
Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, New Delhi relating to the coverage under
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, in place of National Pension System
of those Central Government employees who were recruited against the
post/vacancies advertised/notified for recruitment, on or before 22.12.2003.
The relevant porition is extracted below;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
4. The matter has been examined in consultation with the Department
of Financial Services, Department of Personnel & Training,
Department of Expenditure and Department of Legal Affairs in the
light of the various reprsentations/references and decsions of the
Courts in this regard. It has now been decided that, in all cases where
the Central Government civil employee has been appointed against a
post or vacancy which was advertised/notified for
recruitment/appointment, prior to the date of notification for National
Pension System i.e 22.12.2003 and is covered under the National
Pension System on joining service on ar after 01.01.2004, may be
given a one time option to be covered under the CCS (Pension) Rules,
1972 (now 2021). This option may be exercied by the concerned
Government servants latest by 31.08.2023.
11. In the case on hand, the 1st respodnent was appointed as Postman
through Departmental Competitive Examination held on 04.04.2004 for the
vacany of the year 2002 and joined in the said post on 21.08.2004.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that in
view of the said Official Memorandum, the respondents-authority will
consider the case of the 1st respondent to grant pension under the old
pension scheme and appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with
law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking
note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, We
inclined pass order as follows;
i. The impugned order of the 2nd respondnet-Tribunal in O.A.No.1023
of 2016, dated 20.04.2017 is set aside.
ii. The 1st respondent shall make representation seeking pensionary
benefits under the old pension scheme on or before 31.08.2023.
iii. Upon receipt of such reprensation, the 3rd respondent shall consider
the same in light of the Official Memorandum issued by the
Government of India, dated 03.03.2023 and pass appropriate orders
on merits and in accordance with law, with in a period of twelve (12)
weeks thereafter.
14. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(D.K.K., J.) (P.B.B., J.)
29.08.2023
Index: Yes/No
Internet : Yes
ak
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
To
1. The Director General,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi – 110001.
2.The Postmaster General,
Western Region,
Coimbatore -641002.
3.Superintendent of Post Offices,
Salem West Postal Division,
Salem -636005.
4. The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench,
City Civil Court Building,
High Court, Chennai-600104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.Nos. 1679 to 1682 of 2015
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
&
P.B.BALAJI, J.
ak
W.P.No. 16721 of 2018
and W.M.P.No. 19915 of 2018
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
