Madras High Court
M.Krishnan vs Union Of India on 7 September, 2023
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. B. BALAJI
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
M.Krishnan ..Petitioners
Vs
1.Union of India
Rep.by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
2.The Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600002.
3.The Postmaster General
Southern Region (TN)
Madurai -625002.
4.The Superintendent
Postal Stores Depot,
Tirunelveli – 627002.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
5. The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Rep. By the Registrar
Chennai -600104. ..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying to issue writ of certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
pertaining to the order of the 5th respondent which is made in O.A.No.
/310/00896/2017 dated 03.07.2018 and quash the same, consequent to
direct the respondents 1 to 4 to grant eligible pension to the petitioner under
old pension scheme with all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Malaichamy
For Respondents: Mr. V.Chandrasekaran, Senior Panel
Counsel - R1 & R2
R2 – Tribunal.
ORDER
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.
Brief facts of the case is that the petitioner joined the services of the
postal departmnet as GDS MD (Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer) at
Attalanallur BO on 03.12.1979 and appointed as MTS on 28.04.2009. After
rendereing service of 8 years, 1 month and 3 days in MTS cadre, the
petitioner had retired from service on 31.05.2017. As per Rule 49 of CCS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
(Pension) Rules 1972, a minimum of 9 years and 9 months qualifying
service is requird for grant of pension. The petitioner had rendered about 36
years service both in GDS and MTS but he was not granted pension.
Therefore, for short of 1 year and 8 months qualifying service rendered in
GDS cadre about 28 years can be adjusted by invoking under Rule 88 of
CCS (Pension )Rules, 1972. Without considering the above fact, the
respondent-department has rejected to grant pension to the petitioner. The
petitioner had filed an application in O.A.No.310/00896/2017 before the
Tribunal, Chennai and the same was dismissed by order dated 03.07.2018.
Hence the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has fairly placed a
decision of the Hon'ble Division of this Court rendered in W.P.Nos. 10162,
19881 & 6514 of 2015, dated 28.07.2023, wherein the Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court by considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 8497 of 2019, dated 08.11.2019 (Union of India
and others Vs.Gandiba Behera) and the policy decision of the department
dated 25.09.2020, dismissed the claim made by the petitioners therein. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below;
“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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
(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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
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-tocase/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.”
3. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the present writ petition is
dismissed. No costs.
(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.P.No. 22915 of 2018
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, J.,
&
P.B.BALAJI, J.
ak
To
The Secretary,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001.
2.The Chief Postmaster General
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai, Chennai-600002.
3.The Postmaster General
Southern Region (TN)
Madurai -625002.
4.The Superintendent
Postal Stores Depot,
Tirunelveli – 627002.
5. The Registrar,
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai -600104.
W.P.No. 22915 of 2018
29.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
