Madras High Court
Union Of India vs N.Doraisamy on 22 November, 2023
Author: D.Krishnakumar
Bench: D.Krishnakumar
W.P.No.7823 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.11.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
W.P.No.7823 of 2018
WMP No.9764 of 2018
1. Union of India, rep. by the Chief Postmaster General,
Tamilnadu Circle, Anna Salai,
Chennai 600 002.
3. Post Master General, Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore 641 002.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tirupur Division, Tirupur 641 601. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1. N.Doraisamy
2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai 600 104. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue
a writ of certiorari to call for the records in O.A.310/01419/2014, dated
19.08.2016 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same in so
far it is against the petitioners.
Page 1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.7823 of 2018
For petitioners : Mr.V.Balasubramanian
For Respondents : Mr.R.Malaichamy for first respondent
R2 - Tribunal
ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.)
This writ petition has been filed, as against the order passed by the
Tribunal in O.A.No.310/01419/2014, dated 19.08.2016, in and by which,
the petitioners herein were directed to reconsider the case of the first
respondent for pension by adding period from the date of vacancy to the
actual date of appointment as notional service for the purpose of
determining the qualifying service under the pension rules and pass
speaking orders within a period of 3 months.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is as follows.
The first respondent herein was initially appointed as Gramin Dak
Sevak at Kemmampalayam BO w.e.f. 1.1.1974. Subsequently, he was
selected and appointed as Groud-D on 16.01.2003 for the backlog vacancy
of the year 2001 and after rendering 9 years, 5 months and 15 days, he
retired from service on 30.06.2012. According to the first respondent, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.22822/2010, which is similar in nature to the case of the first
respondent, this court has directed the Department to take into consideration
of the service of 9 years 6 months and 13 days rendered by the petitioner
therein , as qualifying service of 10 years for pension benefit. The first
respondent had rendered nearly 29 years of service as GDS. Further, if his
service of 9 years 5 months and 15 days rendered in Group D is taken into
account as qualifying service, as granted by this Court in similar matter, as
stated supra, he will get pensionary benefit. Therefore, he gave
representation dated 01.07.2014 to the department, however, it was rejected
by the Department, vide order dated 01.08.2014. Challenging the above
order, the first respondent had approached the Tribunal, wherein, the
Tribunal has given the direction to the petitioners, as stated supra to
consider the case of the first respondent. Challenging the same, the
Department has filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that,
the first respondent had joined as Group-D employee on 01.01.2003 and he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
retired from service on 30.06.2012 and he had rendered the service below 10
years. As per the decision of the Board of Postal Department, the first
respondent has not completed the qualifying service of 9 years, 9 months
and hence, he is not entitled for pension.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also brought to the
notice of this court that, in a similar matter in W.P.No.1485/2014, this
Court, vide order dated 15.11.2023, has allowed the writ petition filed by the
Union of India, Postal Department and hence, on the same line, orders may
be passed.
5. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to extract the relevant portion of
the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.1485/2014, dated 15.11.2023,
which runs as follows.
4. The learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioners has brought
the notice of this Court to the decision of this Court made in W.P.Nos.
10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015, dated 28.07.2023, wherein this Court by
relying upon the communication dated 25.11.2020 issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Communications, Department of Posts
(Pension Section), New Delhi and accepting the contention of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
respondent- department therein, dismissed the said writ petition. The
relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below;
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the Assistant Director General (Pension), Department of
Posts (Pension Section), Government of India dated
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.
5. On facts, the 2nd respondent herein has rendered service only 9
years 5 months 2 days and he has not completed minimum qualifying
service of 9 years 9 months to consider for grant of pensionary benefits as
per Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
6. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.Nos. 10162, 19881 & 6514 of 2015, dated 28.07.2023 cited supra
and considering the fact that the 2nd respondent has not completed the
qualifying service of 9 years 9 months in the petitioners-department, the
impugned order passed by the tribunal in O.A.No. 1408 of 2010, dated
13.12.2012 is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, the order passed by the tribunal in O.A.No. 1408
of 2010, dated 13.12.2012 is set aside. The writ petition filed by the
department is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
6. Admittedly, the first respondent has rendered the service 9 years 5
months and 15 days only in Group D. Therefore, in the light of the order
passed in W.P.No.1485/2014, dated 15.11.2023, and also considering the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fact that the first respondent has not completed the qualifying service of 9
years and 9 months in the Department, the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the order passed by
the Tribunal in O.A.No.310/01419/2014, dated 19.08.2016 is set aside. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(D.K.K.J.) (P.D.B.J.)
22.11.2023
Internet: Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
mst
To
1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai 6000 104.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Union of India, rep. by
Tamilnadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002.
3. Post Master General, Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore 641 002.
4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tirupur Division, Tirupur 641 601.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
and
P. DHANABAL, J.
mst
22.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
