Madras High Court
T.Selvaraju vs Union Of India on 14 July, 2025
Author: M.S. Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.P.No.13635 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Writ Petition No.13635 of 2025
T.Selvaraju ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Union of India, represented by
The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Raj Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Chief Postmaster-General,
Tamilnadu Circle,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.Postmaster General,
Central Region,
Tiruchirappalli 620001.
4.Senior Superintendent of Post Officers,
Tiruchirappalli Division,
Tiruchirappalli 620001. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records relating to the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed
by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.1020
of 2022 and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to
treat the period 22.09.2000 to 03.07.2009 as qualifying pensionable
service for the purpose of grant of eligible pension under Rule 49 of
the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (now amended as Rule 44 of CCS
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
W.P.No.13635 of 2025
(Pension) Rules, 2021).
For Petitioner : Mr.P.R.Satyanarayanan
Respondent 1 : Mr.Chandrasekaran
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
Heard Mr. P.R.Satyanarayanan for the petitioner and
Mr.Chandrasekaran for the contesting respondent.
2. The writ petition seeks for the following reliefs:
“ To call for the records relating to the impugned
order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in
O.A.No.1020 of 2022 and quash the same as illegal
and direct the respondents to treat the period
22.09.2000 to 03.07.2009 as qualifying pensionable
service for the purpose of grant of eligible pension
under Rule 49 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 (now
amended as Rule 44 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021).”
3. The undisputable facts are the petitioner was appointed as
Extra-Departmental Mail Carrier (EDMC) by the Postal Department.
Being in possession of a heavy vehicles driving licence, he registered
his name with the Employment Exchange at Tiruchirapalli in the year
1974. Though he was eligible for appointment as a driver, he was not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
considered for the same. Hence, he moved the Central Administrative
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CAT) at Madras by way of an
application in O.A.No.922 of 1998. He contended before the Tribunal
that he had worked for more than 240 days and had been selected to
work as a driver in the leave vacancies. He stated that the Postal
Department had also held out to him by asking his willingness to
work as a driver in any unit in the circle. The respondents had not
kept up with their promise, thereby giving rise to a legitimate
expectation of the writ petitioner. He sought for an order of
appointment.
4. The CAT, after hearing both sides, allowed the application on
22.09.2000 giving a direction to the respondents to consider the case
of the applicant for appointment to the post of vehicle driver and also
to relax the age restriction, if it was so required. It also directed the
respondents to comply with the order within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
5. Despite this order, the respondents rejected the request of the
applicant stating that they could grant age relaxation to an extent of
374 days only and therefore, they are not in a position to appoint the
writ petitioner as a driver. Challenging this order, another application
was moved in O.A.No.916 of 2002. This application also came to be
allowed on 31.01.2003. The respondents challenged the said order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
before this Court by way of a writ petition in W.P.No.25176 of 2003.
6. The said writ petition was taken up for hearing before this
Court on 29.02.2008. It came to be dismissed. It pointed out that as
the earlier order in O.A.No.922 of 1998 had become final, there was
no justification in the case of the writ petitioners therein to refuse
employment to the writ petitioner herein. Challenging the said order, a
special leave petition was preferred to the Supreme Court in SLP
(Civil) CC.No.15156 of 2008. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed
on 25.11.2008.
7. Recording all these facts, the respondents herein issued an
appointment order on 16.04.2009. The petitioner retired from service,
after putting in 6 years 10 months and 28 days. He gave a detailed
representation on 02.06.2018 seeking to treat notionally the period
from 13.10.1998 to 04.07.2009, which was spent on litigation, as
qualifying service for the purpose of pension. He followed it up with a
reminder As there was no response to the representation and the
reminder, he approached the CAT again in O.A/310/00326/2019. By
an order dated 15.03.2019, the CAT directed the respondents to
consider the representation and pass orders within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
8. In compliance with the orders passed by the CAT, the Senior
Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruchirapallai Division passed an
order on 10.02.2020. He rejected the claim of the applicant. Against
this order dated 10.02.2020, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal to
the Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications and
IT, New Delhi on 19.01.2021. He pleaded that he is not seeking the
service rendered by him as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS), for the purpose
of pension, but only the period spent in litigation. He modified his
prayer seeking the period of notional service, not from 13.10.1998,
but from the date of the order passed in O.A.No.922 of 1998 i.e.,
22.09.2000 to be taken into consideration. This request also came to
be rejected. Consequently, he moved O.A.No.310/1020/2022 seeking
to quash the proceedings dated 10.02.2020, and the order dated
16.04.2022, and to further direct the respondent to account notionally
the period from 22.09.2000 till 04.07.2009 as qualifying service and
to grant minimum pension as provided under Rule 49 of CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972.
9. The Tribunal admitted the original application and directed
the respondents to file a counter. A detailed counter too was filed. The
stand taken by the respondents was that the applicant had joined the
service only on 06.07.2009 and therefore, not eligible for pension
under the Old Pension Scheme, but he is covered under the New
Pension Scheme only. They pointed out that till 05.07.2009, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
applicant was only a GDS and since GDS is not a regular service, he
is not entitled to the relief sought for. They relied upon certain
judgments of the Supreme Court on this plea, to substantiate their
plea.
10. The CAT took up the application for disposal on 30.08.2024.
It agreed with the submissions of the respondents and dismissed the
Original Application. Challenging the same, the present writ petition.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
counsel for the first respondent reiterated the contentions they placed
before the Tribunal.
12. We have carefully considered their submissions and have
gone through the records.
13. We have already set forth the admitted facts supra. It is not
in dispute that the directions passed by the Tribunal on 22.09.2000
was never challenged. Therefore, the respondents were duty bound to
appoint the petitioner, three months from the date of the order i.e., at
least from 22.12.2000. Yet, it was the respondents, who forced the
petitioner, to move the CAT again in O.A.No.916 of 2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
14. A perusal of that order passed in O.A.No.916 of 2002 shows
that the CAT did no more than direct the respondents to comply with
the order previously passed. Even at that stage, i.e., on 31.01.2003,
the respondents did not issue the appointment order. They challenged
only the subsequent order of the CAT (O.A. No.916 of 2002) by way of
a writ petition. That too ended in dismissal. The further plea for
Special Leave to the Supreme Court also ended in dismissal. These
facts will show that from September 2000 till November 2008, the
respondents were consuming time by indulging in litigation and were
not implementing the orders of the CAT. The delay from 2000 to 2009
cannot be placed at the door step of the writ petitioner. Had the order
been complied as directed by the CAT, the writ petitioner would have
had additional nine years of service and thereby, making him eligible
for pension.
15. The CAT had relied upon the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct
and Engagement) Rules, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as “GDS Rules”]
for the purpose of dismissing the original application. In fact, the
question of law that had been framed by CAT in this case was
“Whether the service rendered by the
applicant as GDS can be taken into account for grant
of pension or not?”
This was not the issue that was presented, before the Tribunal. The
issue, that the Tribunal ought to have posed itself and which is very
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
clear from the original application, is that
“whether the period of litigation should be taken
into consideration for the purpose of calculating
the qualifying service.”
When a wrong question is posed for the purpose of answering the
right issue, the result would obviously be a wrong one.
16. The Tribunal merely relied upon Rule 3 of the GDS Rules to
hold that a GDS would be outside the civil service of the Union and
could not claim parity with a Central Government employee. At the
risk of repetition, we have to point out, the plea of the applicant was
that the period, from when he succeeded before the Tribunal, through
the litigation till the Supreme Court, should be treated notionally as
qualifying service and to grant him pension. This issue has
unfortunately not been addressed by the Tribunal. Where the issue
that has been raised has not been answered at all by the Tribunal, it
renders itself to be liable to be interfered with by us in exercising
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, do so.
17. Under Article 261 of the Constitution of India, full faith and
credit should be enacted to the orders and decrees of the courts.
When the Constitution of India was given by us in 1950, there was no
CAT. Subsequently, the CAT took over the duties, which were
performed by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
at the first instance. Therefore, the orders that had been passed by
the CAT in exercise of the powers conferred under the Administrative
Tribunals Act, would also be covered under Article 261 of the
Constitution.
18. Having succeeded on 22.09.2000 and that order not having
been challenged, the applicant gets the right to claim that he ought to
have been appointed from the date on which the judgment was
pronounced. In fact, at least after the second round of litigation,
which concluded in January of 2003, the respondents could have
complied with the order of the Tribunal. Yet they did not do so. The
litigation continued at the instance of the respondents till November
2008.
19. The writ petitioner cannot be treated on par with other GDS
employees. This is because the other GDS employees are not
strengthened by the orders of the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the
view that the applicant would be entitled to calculate the period spent
on litigation towards calculation of qualifying service. The factum that
the applicant was strengthened with the judgment of the Tribunal,
which had attained finality in the year 2000, makes all the difference
between his case and those covered by the judgment of the Superme
Court in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera, AIR Online 2019 SC
2018.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
20. We are conscious of the fact that GDS Rules cannot be
utilised for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for
pension. We have already noted in the preliminary portion of the order
that the applicant was appointed as GDS in the year 1979. We are not
taking into consideration his period from 1979 till 22.09.2000 for the
purpose of his qualifying service. It is only the period from
22.09.2000, i.e. the date on which the Tribunal allowed the
application, we are taking into consideration.
21. In fact in paragraph 21(ii) of Gandiba Behera's case, the
Supreme Court had directed the appellants therein to consider
whether the minimum qualifying service rule can be relaxed in cases
of the respondents before the Supreme Court, in terms of Rule 88 of
1972 Rules.
22. In the light of the above discussion, we are inclined to
interfere. The impugned order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed
in the following terms:
(i) The respondents shall treat the period from 22.09.2000, i.e.,
the date of the order passed in OA.No.922 of 1998, till 04.07.2009 as
qualifying service.
(ii) the benefits which the petitioner would get on account of
clause (i) shall be treated notionally, and the financial benefits that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
the applicant would have obtained should be treated as his
contribution under the Old Pension Scheme.
(iii) The respondents shall grant the benefit of pension to the
applicant in compliance with clause No.1 within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
No costs.
(M.S.R, J.) (V.L.N, J.)
14.07.2025
nl
Index : Yes
Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes
To
1.The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Ministry of Communications & IT,
Raj Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Chief Postmaster-General,
Tamilnadu Circle,
Chennai – 600 002.
3.The Postmaster General,
Central Region,
Tiruchirappalli 620001.
4.The Senior Superintendent of Post Officers,
Tiruchirappalli Division,
Tiruchirappalli 620001.
5.The Central Administrative Tribunal,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
Madras Bench, Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
M.S. RAMESH, J.
and
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
Writ Petition No.13635 of 2025
14.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 07:05:58 pm )
