Madras High Court
R.Shanmugam vs The Registrar on 28 July, 2023
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.07.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
R.Shanmugam .. Petitioner in WP.10162/2015
P.Subramanian .. Petitioner in WP.19881/2015
M.Dhanalakshmi .. Petitioner in WP.6514/2015
v.
Union of India rep. by
the Chief Post Master General
Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
The Superintendent of Post Offices
Namakkal Division
Namakkal 637 001
Senior Accounts Officer
O/o The Post Master General
Western Region (TN)
Coimbatore 641 002
____________
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 600 104 ..Respondents 1-4 in WP.10162/2015
Union of India rep. by
the Chief Post Master General
Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
The Superintendent of Post Offices
Theni Division
Theni 625 531
The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 600 104 ..Respondents 1-3 in WP.19881/2015
Union of India rep. by
the Chief Post Master General
Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
The Superintendent of Post Offices
Virudhachalam Division
Virudhachalam 606 601
The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 600 104 ..Respondents 1-3 in WP.6514/2015
W.P.No.10162 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
the records pertaining to the order of 4th respondent which is made in
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
O.A.No.1207 of 2010 by an order dated 15.03.2011 and quash the same,
consequent to direct the Respondents 1 to 3 to cure the shortage of
qualification service by invoking Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and
grant pension and other retirement service benefits and thereby further direct
to pay the arrears of pension and other retirement service benefits to the
petitioner.
W.P.No.19881 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling
the records pertaining to the order of the 3rd respondent which is made in
O.A. No.118 of 2013 dated 02.06.2015 in so far as rejecting the claim of the
petitioner to count the officiating service rendered by the petitioner from
30.03.2000 to 10.04.2003 and or to cure the shortage of 45 days of
qualifying service by taking into account of 30 years of GDS Service to grant
pension to the petitioner by invoking Rule 88 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
and quash the same, consequent to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to grant
minimum pension to the petitioner.
W.P.No.6514 of 2015 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling the
records pertaining to the order of 3rd Respondent which is made in
O.A.No.786 of 2010 by its common order dated 31.01.2011 in so far as the
petitioner's husband is concerned and quash the same, consequently to direct
the Respondents 1 & 2 to grant pension and other retirement service benefits
for the service rendered by the Petitioner's husband and thereby further
direct to pay the arrears of pension and other retirement service benefits to
the petitioner and also the family pension and arrears of family pension to
the petitioner.
For Petitioners :: Mr.R.Malaichamy
For Respondents :: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General
assisted by Mr.V.Chandrasekaran
Senior Panel Counsel for R1 to R3
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
in WP.10162/15
R4-Tribunal
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General
assisted by Mr.Venkataswamy Babu
Senior Panel Counsel for R1 & R2
in WP.19881/15
R3-Tribunal
Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
Additional Solicitor General
assisted by Mr.P.G.Santhoshkumar
Senior Panel Counsel for R1 & R2
in WP.6514/15
R3-Tribunal
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.)
The petitioners have filed these writ petitions aggrieved by the
impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting
their claim for pension on the ground that they have not put in the qualifying
period of not less than 10 years service, as contemplated under Rule 49 of
the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the writ petitions are as
follows. The petitioner in W.P.No.10162 of 2015 entered the service of the
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
respondent Department as Extra Departmental Mail Deliverer on
27.08.1968, now called as Gramin Dak Sevak, and worked as such till
13.02.1998. He was selected to Group-D service and joined the post at
Tiruchengode Head Post Office on 10.02.1998 and retired from service on
the afternoon of 30.06.2006 on superannuation. According to the petitioner,
the period of 9 years and 3 days of service put in by the petitioner should be
counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Similarly, the
petitioner in W.P.No.19881 of 2015 was selected to the post of Group-D
from among the Gramin Dak Sevaks under seniority quota vide order dated
30.03.2000 by the respondent Department and he was ordered to work as
Group-D and Postman at Bodinayakanur HO from 30.03.2000 to
10.04.2003. According to the petitioner, the period of his engagement as
substitute/officiating service in Group D from 30.03.2000 to 10.04.2003
should be taken as qualifying service for grant of pension. Similarly, the
husband of the petitioner in W.P.No.6514 of 2015 was working as Extra
Departmental Mail Carrier, now called as Gramin Dak Sevak, at Sitalur
Branch Office and worked as such from 26.11.1968 to 30.12.1999. Her
husband was promoted to the cadre of Group-D by an order dated
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
01.01.1999 and he joined duty on 01.02.1999. He worked as such and
retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2008. According to
the petitioner, the period of 9 years, 5 months and 28 days put in by her
husband should be taken as the qualifying service for the grant of pension.
Since the claim of the petitioners have been rejected by the Central
Administrative Tribunal by the orders impugned herein, the petitioners are
before this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent
Department.
4. The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
respondent Department, relying upon Rule 14(2) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972, which reads as follows,
“(2). For the purpose of sub rule (1), the expression 'service'
means service under the Government and paid by that
Government from Consolidated Fund of India or a Local Fund
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
administered by that Government but does not include service
in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is
treated as qualifying service by that Government.”,
submitted that since the Government has not provided the counting of a part
of the service rendered in the capacity of EDA/GDS on absorption to regular
departmental posts, the claim of the petitioners have been rejected by the
respondent Department. The learned Additional Solicitor General has also
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.8497 of 2019 dated 08.11.2019 (Union of India and others v. Gandiba
Behera) holding that there is no provision under the law on the basis of
which any period of the service rendered by the respondents in the capacity
of GDS could be added to their regular tenure in the postal department for
the purpose of fulfilling the period of qualifying service on the question of
grant of pension.
5. We also find merits on the submissions made by the learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent Department. The
issue raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions is squarely covered by
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.8497 of 2019
dated 08.11.2019 (Union of India and others v. Gandiba Behera), wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 20 & 21, has held as follows:-
“20. For the reasons we have already discussed, we are of
the opinion that the judgments under appeal cannot be
sustained. There is no provision under the law on the
basis of which any period of the service rendered by the
respondents in the capacity of GDS could be added to
their regular tenure in the postal department for the
purpose of fulfilling the period of qualifying service on the
question of grant of pension.
21. We are also of the opinion that the authorities ought
to consider their cases for exercising the power to relax
the mandatory requirement of qualifying service under the
1972 Rules if they find the conditions contained in Rule
88 stand fulfilled in any of these cases. We do not accept
the stand of the appellants that just because that exercise
would be prolonged, recourse to Rule 88 ought not to be
taken. The said Rules is not number specific, and if undue
hardship is caused to a large number of employees, all of
their cases ought to be considered. If in the cases of any
of the respondents' pension order has already been issued,
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
the same shall not be disturbed, as has been directed in
the case of Union of India & others v. Registrar and
another (supra). We, accordingly allow these appeals
and set aside the judgments under appeal, subject to the
following conditions:-
(i) In the event the Central Government or the postal
department has already issued any order for
pension to any of the respondents, then such
pension should not be disturbed. In issuing this
direction, we are following the course which was
directed to be adopted by this Court in the case of
Union of India & others v. Registrar and another
(supra).
(ii)In respect of the other respondents, who have not
been issued any order for pension, the concerned
ministry may consider as to whether the minimum
qualifying service Rule can be relaxed in their cases
in terms of Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules.”
It has also been brought to our notice that pursuant to the above directions,
the Department has taken a policy decision on 25.09.2020, as
communicated in the letter of the Assistant Director General (Pension),
Department of Posts (Pension Section), Government of India dated
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
25.11.2020, ordering as follows:-
“2. In compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court Order
dated 08.11.2019 passed in Special Leave to Appeal
(C) No.13042/2014, the matter was examined in
detail and the matter placed before the Postal Service
Board (PSB) of this Department for deciding the
issue as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
3. The Postal Services Board after detailed
deliberations in its meeting held on 25.09.2020
decided as under:
“In view of directions of Apex Court dated
08.11.2019, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, GDS
(Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 and
observations of IFW of this Department, the
Board after in-depth deliberation decided that
there cannot be a single definition of 'undue
hardship' that can be applicable to all cases.
Hence, all cases similar to the cases tagged with
the SLP No.13042/2014 and decided by Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide Order dated 08.11.2019,
may be taken up as per Rule 49 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972 only where an inbuilt
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
relaxation of three months has already been
provided. No further relaxation on case-to-
case/enmasse basis will be admissible in terms
of Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.”
4. The decision of Postal Service Board (PSB) in
compliance of Apex Court order dated 08.11.2019
may be brought to the notice of all concerned for
strict compliance. This may also be brought to the
notice in consultation with CGSC of all concerned
CAT/Courts in which similar such cases are pending
for adjudication thereby ensuring early
disposal/settlement of the cases.”
6. In the light of the above, we are convinced that there is no question
of considering the request of the petitioners for the purpose of pensionary
benefits. Therefore, finding no merits or reason to interfere with the
impugned orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the writ
petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(D.K.K.,J.) (P.B.B,J.)
Index : yes/no 28.07.2023
Neutral citation : yes/no
ss
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
To
1. The Registrar
Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai 600 104
2. The Chief Post Master General
Tamil Nadu Circle
Anna Salai
Chennai 600 002
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Namakkal Division
Namakkal 637 001
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Theni Division
Theni 625 531
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices
Virudhachalam Division
Virudhachalam 606 601
6. The Senior Accounts Officer
O/o The Post Master General
Western Region (TN)
Coimbatore 641 002
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J.
AND
P.B.BALAJI,J.
ss
W.P.Nos.10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015
28.07.2023
____________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
