Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K V Manoharan vs Post Kerala Circle on 10 September, 2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. No.180/0021/2022
Wednesday, this the 10th day of September, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
K.V. Manoharan, S/o. late Chathunni, Aged 62 years, Postman (Retired),
Kallai PO, Kozhikode-673 003, Residing at Kolangara Veedu,
Udambusserry Parambu, Mini Industrial Estate, Kunnamangalam,
Kozhikode-673 571.
-Applicant
[By Advocates: Mr. O.V.Radhakrishnan Sr., Mr.Antony Mukkath,
Mr.George Varghese]
Versus
1. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division, Calicut-673 005.
2. Postmaster General, Northern Region, Kozhikode-673 612.
3. Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
4. Director General of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
5. Union of India represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Communications
New Delhi-110001.
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr.M.N.Manmadan, SCGSC]
The application having been heard on 27.08.2025, the Tribunal on
10.09.2025 delivered the following:
2025.09.10 12:17:19
DEEPA S
+05'30'
O.A.No.21/2022 2
ORDER
Applicant is a former Postman of Kallai Post Office in Kozhikode Postal division. He had commenced service as an Extra Departmental Mail Packer in Arakinar on 10.03.1981. Later, according to the applicant, on 02.08.2001, he was 'ordered to officiate as Postman at Kallai Post Office'. Applicant claims that ever since 02.08.2001 he continued to officiate as Postman in the said Post Office till he was appointed as regular Postman on 22.10.2009. Thereafter, he was sent for training for ten days and was appointed as regular Postman on 31.10.2009. He continued as such till 30.11.2019, on attaining the age of superannuation.
2. The applicant claims that he has officiated as Postman under Annexure-A2. Thereafter, he was selected as regular Postman in 2009 in the examination held for filling up 2006 vacancies. He underwent training and then was appointed as Postman on regular basis, which is evident from Annexure-A5. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on 30.11.2019. He was initially paid an amount of Rs.3,46,862/- being the cash equivalent to the leave salary in lieu of 289 days of unutilised earned leave and 11 days of half pay leave at his credit. Later, an amount of Rs.13,782/- was also paid to him. Similarly, based on Annexures-A11 and A12, it is submitted that, 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 3 he was paid service gratuity.
3. On 21.10.2021 he submitted Annexure-A13 representation before the 1st respondent seeking to reckon his service from 02.08.2001 for the purpose of pension. He claimed that he had put in 18 years and three months of service and was entitled to get pension under the Old Pension Scheme, for which a request was made, which stands rejected by Annexure-A14 communication dated 18.11.2021. The cause of action for approaching the Tribunal is Annexure-A14 order rejecting his plea for pension under the Old Pension Scheme. The respondents have stated that his date of commencement of service being 31.10.2009, he is not entitled to get pension under the Old Pension Scheme, so that the request was rejected. Accordingly, the applicant has approached the Tribunal for a declaration that he is entitled to get his officiating service in the post of Postman with effect from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009 reckoned towards qualifying service for all purposes including pension and retirement benefits and the Annexure-A14 rejecting his claim for reckoning his officiating service from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009 is illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, to set aisde Annexure-A14 and to issue appropriate direction to the respondents to reckon the period from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009 towards 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 4 qualifying service and to grant him retiral benefits under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.
4. In support of the said plea, he has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others [(1990) 2 SCC 715] and Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India and others [(2000) 8 SCC 25] where it was held that even if an appointment was originated irregularly, if it had followed by regular appointment, the said irregular appointment also is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of pension, that rejecting the claim is illegal and unconstitutional.
5. The applicant has also relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Reghukumar v. Union of India [2021 (4) KLT 215], where it was held that if an applicant had continuous, officiating/adhoc service till his regularisation in Group-D post in terms of the DPC proceedings then followed by regular appointment, the earlier appointment is liable to be calculated for the grant of pension. Therefore, the applicant says that he is entitled to get his period of appointment as officiating Postman from 02.08.2001 onwards and reckoning the entire period he would have rendered 18 years and 4 months service, but he was taken as an appointee after 01.01.2004 and has been 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 5 denied pension and is being paid only a meager amount under the National Pension Scheme, which is illegal. So, the applicant asserts that he is entitled to get the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 and Annexure-A14 is liable to be set aside.
6. On behalf of all the respondents, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices filed reply denying the contentions of the applicant. They have admitted that the applicant had started his career as an Extra Departmental Mail Packer on 10.03.1981. While so, he was engaged to work in the vacant post of Postman in Kallai Post Office for various spells during the period 2001- 2008. He had worked as Postman on working arrangement by availing leave without allowances in his parent post. The wages due to the applicant during the period of such working arrangement was treated as extra expenditure towards the cost of engaging a substitute. The respondents have asserted that the claim of the applicant that he was ordered to officiate as Postman at Kallai Post Office with effect from 02.08.2001 and that he had put in uninterrupted, continuous service as Postman till he was regularly appointed as Postman is incorrect.
7. It is repeatedly stated that the respondents had never ordered to officiate him in any post and no memo or order was ever issued to the 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 6 applicant for any such working arrangement. Annexure-A2 document is a standard form under Rule 267 of the Posts and Telegraphs Financial Hand Book, Volume-1, Second Edition. It is a charge report and receipt for cash and stamps on transfer of charge, which clearly shows that the charge of the office of Act-Postman II was made over to the applicant on 02.08.2001. It is also evident from Annexure-A2 that there is no reference to any memo or order issued in this regard, that it is only a working arrangement to act as a Postman and not as a regular or officiating one, compared to Annexures-A5 and A7. Thus the averment of the applicant that he was ordered to officiate as Postman at Kallai Post Office with effect from 02.08.2001 is clearly misleading.
8. According to the respondents, although Extra Departmental Agents or Gramin Dak Sevaks are holders of civil posts, they are outside regular civil service and are governed by separate set of Rules, namely the Post and Telegraph Extra Department Agents (Conduct of Service) Rules, 1964, later superseded by Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001, then Rules 2011 and Rules 2020. Therefore, selection of Gramin Dak Sevak for appointment to the post of Postman or any other post in regular service is a direct recruitment. As such, an Extra Departmental Agent or Gramin Dak Sevak cannot officiate as a Postman in the regular service and service during work 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 7 arrangement made in exigencies of service cannot be termed as officiating service.
9. According to the respondents, such a working arrangement was purely temporary in nature. Such employees were decided by calling willingness; other than seeking willingness, there is no other selection process for engagement on working arrangement. Such engagements are made only till the vacancies are filled up by regular incumbent resuming duties or till it is filled up by transfer or appointment of another Postman to such post. The working arrangement is made by treating the wages paid to the Gramin Dak Sevaks as extra/additional expenditure and the period of engagement does not count for any purpose. Such working arrangement does not entail any right or claim for regularisation. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that he has rendered officiating service in the post of Postman for a period of 8 years and 2 months as on 22.10.2009 is baseless and devoid of merits.
10. According to the respondents, since the applicant was appointed after 01.01.2004 he was included in the National Pension Scheme as per his entitlement. Since his prior discharge of functions as Postman cannot be reckoned for any purpose, he is not entitled to get the benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 8
11. The averment of the applicant that he has rendered total 18 years and 3 months service without break in the post of Postman has been denied. The applicant was engaged in vacant post or leave vacancies of Postmen in short spells by availing leave without allowances from his original post of Gramin Dak Sevak. As per records available with the respondents, the applicant had not worked continuously from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009 as claimed by him. In a tabular form it is stated that he had not been working as such. During these periods, the applicant had not worked as Postman. Therefore, his claim is sought to be rejected.
12. Moreover, on the basis of the decision in Y. Najithamol & Others v. Soumya S.D.and others [(2016) 9 SCC 352] it is submitted that he had come to the regular service of Postman only on 31.10.2009 and therefore his services after 31.10.2009 alone can be reckoned, during the period National Pension System was in force and therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefits of the Old Pension Scheme.
13. It is also submitted that the decisions reported in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association and Rudra Kumar Sain, quoted supra, claimed by the applicant are clearly distinguishable on facts. The observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said cases are not 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 9 applicable in the facts of a Gramin Dak Sevak, who cannot officiate in any of the post in the regular service of the department. Working arrangement cannot be considered as officiating or ad hoc or stop gap arrangement in the case of the applicant. Moreover, such working arrangements were not continuous. They were dependent on short term or long term leave vacancies. Therefore, the decisions are not applicable in the facts of the case.
14. Further, it is submitted that before he was regularly appointed in 2009 he had never undergone any selection process to the post of Postman. After his recruitment he had undergone a training for ten days and then only was appointed as Postman. The different spells of service during 2001-2008 rendered by him intermittently on working arrangement basis by availing leave without allowances from the parent post cannot be reckoned as service for the present purpose.
15. According to the respondents, as per the Rules, Gramin Dak Sevak is outside the Civil service of the Union and shall not claim to be at par with the Central Government employees. Further, a Gramin Dak Sevak shall not be entitled to get any pension, but only entitled to an ex-gratia gratuity or any other payment as may be decided by the Government from time to time. In this regard, referring to Annexures-R1(A) and R1(B), it is submitted that after 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 10 he was regularly appointed as Postman, he was paid severance amounts of Rs.20,000/- respectively, and Rs.22,000/- respectively, which show that the engagement of the applicant prior to the appointment as Postman was as Gramin Dak Sevak and all service benefits upto his termination have been sanctioned.
16. To sum up, the respondents have submitted that the applicant had never officiated as a Postman prior to his regular appointment in 2009 and the period from 2001-2008, when he was working as Postman on working arrangement basis, cannot be reckoned for any purpose and therefore, the respondents have defended Annexure-A14 communication.
17. The applicant has filed a lengthy rejoinder denying the contentions of the respondents in the reply. He has challenged the very competence of the said Sukumaran, who had filed reply on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 claiming himself as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. According to the applicant, a person who claims to be working as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices in the office of the Senior Superintendent does not show that he is holding current duties and charges of the post of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices. Such a person has no competence to file a reply. So, according to the applicant, a competent reply has not been filed and the reply filed on behalf of 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 11 respondents 1 to 5 is liable to be rejected as it is not in terms of Rule 12(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Moreover, the said Sukumaran has not been authorised by any person to file the reply and in the absence of authorisation such a reply statement cannot be accepted.
18. Further, reiterating his claim that he had been officiating as Postman from 2001-2008 it is submitted that the version of the respondents with regard to his appointment as Postman is wrong, false and misleading. In fact he had worked as a Postman from 2001 to 2008 without any break till he was regularly appointed and therefore it is reiterated that his service as Postman from 2001 to 2008 is liable to be reckoned as regular service.
19. In order to prove his contentions he wanted to produce documents including copy of attendance registers for the period from 2001 onwards for which he made Annexure-A15 application under the Right to Information Act. But he was informed that those documents are not available. However, he was allowed to inspect documents from 2004 to 2010. Then he filed an appeal before the Appellate authority under the Right to Information Act, then only he was served with Annexure-A19. However, Annxure-A19, in respect of attendance register for the period from 2004 to 2010, is severely mutilated and disfigured. Such an information does not contain the full details 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 12 for the months of April, May and June of 2004 and the information furnished in respect of June and September for the year 2007 were not supplied at all. That means, he was furnished only part of the records he required; then he filed Second Appeal under the Right to Information Act. When the Second Appeal was admitted, he was supplied with details for the months of April, May, June 2004 and also June and September 2007, which is Annexure-A23.
20. According to the respondents, even then he was not furnished with documents for the period 2001 to 2004. The contentions of the respondents with regard to his nature of appointment are incorrect and false. Even though he claimed that he was officiating as a Postman from 2001 onwards, the respondents denied the same and given a different version, but supporting documents have not been produced in support of the version in the reply statement, which is illegal. Referring to the decision reported in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana and others [(1988) 4 SCC 534] it is submitted that if the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of the facts are not annexed to the Writ Petition or the counter affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. Here, the respondents did not produce appropriate documents to prove their contentions and therefore, their version have to be rejected.
2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 13
21. Referring to the contention of the respondents about the deployment of the applicant as Postman in the Kallai Post Office with effect from 02.08.2001, it is submitted that the version is contrary to law and facts and the records. According to him, a person can be asked to officiate in ordinary connotation is when a servant having held one post permanently or substantively appointed in a post in a higher rank, but not permanently or substantively still retaining his lien on his substantive post, that is officiating in that post till his confirmation. In this connection, he has relied on the decision in Arun Kumar Chatterjee v. South Eastern Railway and others [(1985) 2 SCC 451].
22. According to the applicant, the respondents have filed reply with distorted facts with intention to deprive him his legitimate rights and applying illegitimate meaning to the expression 'officiating service'. The respondents are adopting illogical and convoluted reasonings to reject the legitimate claim of the applicant, which is malice in law. He has reiterated that he continued to officiate in the post of Postman in Kallai Post Office since 02.08.2001 till his appointment to the post of Postman substantively on regular selection on 31.10.2009 without any break.
23. The applicant has submitted that the reply has been filed with 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 14 false contentions, which is capable of taking adverse inference against them. The facts and figures shown in paragraph 14 of the reply statement are thoroughly misleading; without producing sufficient documents those statements cannot be accepted. The short breaks shown in the table in paragraph 14 of the reply statement cannot have any impact on continuous service of the applicant. The applicant on assuming charge as evident from Annexure-A2 on 02.08.2001 did not relinquish the officiating charge of Postman until he was selected and appointed as Postman on regular basis. It is not a matter of dispute that the applicant was holding the charge of Postman on officiating basis while he was selected and appointed as Postman.
24. According to the applicant, the burden has shifted to the respondents to substantiate the stand that the applicant had not worked continuously from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009. In the absence of such materials being produced, adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondents.
25. Referring to Annexure-A25 order of this Tribunal in O.A.704/2006 it is submitted that this Tribunal had found that posting to a Group-D post from Extra Departmental Agent or Gramin Dak Sevak is a promotion which was the law prevailing at that time. In Annexure-A26 judgment, this decision has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, the respondents cannot 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 15 say that the Rule under Najithamol, quoted supra, has to prevail. Najithamol has only prospective operation.
26. The respondents filed an additional reply statement reiterating that the applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Agent, who was governed by the Post and Telegraph Extra Department Agents (Conduct of Service) Rules, 1964, later superseded by Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001, he was appointed as Postman on 31.10.2009 and was governed by the India Post and Telegraphs (Postman/Mail Guard/Head Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 1969, later superseded by the Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard) Recruitment Rule, 2010, which were later superseded by the Department of Posts Postman and Mail Guard (Group C Post) Recruitment Rules, 2018. According to them, their service as Extra Departmental Agent/GDS is out side the regular service and the selection of the applicant while serving as GDS and his appointment to the post of Postman is a direct recruitment. Ministry of Finance had introduced the National Pension System with effect from 01.01.2004. The applicant was appointed as Postman on 31.10.2009 so that he was covered by NPS. As per Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the Rules are applicable only to those Government servants appointed on or before 31.12.2003. Also, as per Rule 2, the applicant 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 16 was excluded from the purview of the said Rules as he was a Gramin Dak Sevak, whose terms and conditions of service were regulated by separate Rules. The applicant having been borne on the cadre of Postman only with effect from 31.10.2009 which is after the introduction of the NPS is not covered by CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. In the circumstances, the terming of qualifying service of the applicant under Rule 13 does not arise as the said Rules are not applicable to him. Moreover, unless the CCS(Pension) Rules apply to him the applicant is disentitled for claiming a declaration to reckon his officiating service in the post of Postman with effect from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009 as qualifying service under the Rules of 1972 for the purpose of pension and other retirement benefits. His inclusion in the NPS on appointment as Postman on 31.10.2009 was accepted by him without any demur and he cannot agitate a cause occurred in 2009 after his retirement on 31.10.2019.
27. Touching the competency of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices to sign the reply, they invited attention to Rule 127A of the Postal Manual Volume II, which enables all Gazetted Officers in the Postal Department who are fully conversant with the facts of the case can verify and sign the pleadings. They also relied on paragraph 27 of the order of the 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 17 Tribunal in O.A.907/2017 in support of the contention. Moreover, Section 22(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, Rules 12(2) and 32 of the CAT(Procedure) Rules ere also adverted to.
28. Besides the above, quoting paragraph 4 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Union of India and others v. Radhakrishnan A.S. and others [2024:KER:7061] it is submitted that a person cannot claim pension with retrospective date beyond the date on which he was borne on the cadre. Thus the respondents have pleaded for dismissing the O.A.
29. The applicant has filed an additional rejoinder reiterating the contentions. This time also, he has stated that the person who signed the additional reply is not authorized to verify and sign the same for and on behalf of the Union of India. A Group-A officer in any Department of the Government of India alone is authorized to sign all pleadings and therefore, in the absence of authorization, the said Sarada, who signed the additional reply is not competent.
30. Referring to the contention of the respondents in the additional reply, with reference to Rule 127A of the Postal Manual Volume-II, it is stated that it is not a statutory Rule, but only an administrative instruction and it does not have any force of law and it cannot prevail over Rule 12(1) of the Central 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 18 Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. He has further stated that the said Senior Superintendent is not authorized to sign the pleadings and other documents and therefore, the additional reply also is not competent.
31. It is submitted that the order of this Tribunal in Pariyani v. Union of India and others in O.A.907/2017 has been reversed by the Hon'ble High Court in Annexure-A29 judgment in OP(CAT) 81/2023. That judgment was rendered on 12.02.2025, but the additional reply was filed thereafter. Therefore, it is contumacious on the part of the respondents in raising a contention based on the said order of this Tribunal, which stands reversed. He has reiterated all the contentions, that is touching Annexure-A2 etc. and submitted that he was officiating as a Postman from 2001 onwards and there is absolutely nothing in Najithamol that it has only prospective operation. So, he has pressed for allowing the O.A.
32. I heard Sri.George Varghese, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri.M.N.Manmadan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, in great detail.
33. The learned counsel for the applicant filed a detailed argument note also. According to him, after having officiated in the post of Postman from 2001 to 2009, the applicant was regularly appointed as Postman on 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 19 31.10.2009. He had rendered regular service from 02.08.2001 onwards without any interruption. Therefore, such a service is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of grant of pension. Even though he was regularly appointed as Postman only on 31.10.2009, in the special circumstances of the case, his period of service as Postman from 02.08.2001 has to be reckoned and added to his credit and therefore, he should be taken to have commenced service on 02.08.2001 and pension and other retiral benefits should be granted to him from that day onwards. In this connection, decisions in Engineering Officers' Association, Raudra Kumar sain and others etc. besides L.Chandrakishore v. State of Manipur [(1999) 8 SCC 287] and Baleswar Das v. State of U.P. [AIR 1981 SC 41] were also relied on by him.
34. The learned counsel also submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has considered the question in Reghukumar, which has been reiterated in Annexure-A29 judgment. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to get the benefits.
35. He has also reiterated the preliminary objections with regard to the competency of the said Sri.Sukumaran and Smt.Sarada to file the reply. They do not have authorization also.
36. According to the applicant, he is entitled for officiating as a 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 20 Postman even though he was a GDS before his regular appointment as Postman. In this connection, Annexure-A28 was also relied on by him. According to him, the decision in Najithamol has only prospective operation, before that a GDS could have been promoted to a Group-D post in the Postal Department.
37. Referring to Rule 13 of the CCS(Pension) Rules read with Rule 2 he said that the applicant should be deemed to have commenced service with effect from 02.08.2001.
38. On the other hand, the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel pointed out that the decision in Reghukumar was rendered purely on the basis of Rule 13 without referring to Rule 2. According to him, from Rule 2 of the CCS(Pension) Rules it is very clear that a GDS who is governed by the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules is not entitled to be appointed in an officiating capacity against a substantive vacancy in Government service.
39. The learned Standing Counsel asserted that he could not have been appointed in an officiating capacity against a substantive vacancy, but a stop gap arrangement made by using the service of GDS to do the works of a Postman cannot be taken as an officiating appointment. During the period of 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 21 officiating or temporary appointment there should not be any break. The applicant could not establish that he had worked as Postman in an officiating capacity. Annexure-A2 has absolutely no relevance. It is only a charge report, which does not indicate that he has been put in charge of the Postman during the period or he had continued as such. There should not be any break between temporary engagement and substantive appointment. Here, the applicant, who had started his career as an Extra Departmental Agent in 1981, was put in charge of a Postman on working arrangement basis. That cannot be reckoned as a substantive appointment. It was only an adhoc or stop gap arrangement. He did not work uninterruptedly till 22.10.2009. There is absolutely no evidence that he was asked to officiate. The nature of the appointment is very material. Such a working arrangement has been tried to be developed as an officiating appointment, which cannot be approved by the Tribunal.
40. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted with reference to FR Rule 9(19) that only a Government servant can officiate. A GDS., though holds a civil post, is not a Government servant and therefore, he cannot officiate. Moreover, referring to Annexures-R1(A) and R1(B) it is submitted that after having obtained severance amounts in 2010 by virtue of the post of GDS held 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 22 by him he cannot now say, after long years of commencement of service as Postman in 2009, that he is entitled to the benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules. Annexure-A13 representation was given long after the period of limitation, in 2021. Now, the O.A. is barred by estoppel as well as limitation. The learned counsel also relied on the decision in the Chief Executive Officer and others v. Lalitha and others [2025 (2) AISLJ 158].
41. In reply, based on the decision in M/s.Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited v. the State of Uttar Pradesh and others [AIR 1979 SC 621] the learned counsel for the applicant said that the plea of waiver cannot be raised for the first time at this stage without supporting pleadings.
42. It is not disputed that the applicant had commenced service as an Extra Departmental Mail Packer on 10.03.1981. From 02.08.2001 onwards he had worked as Postman in Kallai Post Office in Calicut division of the Postal Department. It is also admitted that pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents for filling up the posts of Postmen of 2006 vacancy the applicant had applied, underwent the selection process and was selected and appointed as a regular Postman on 22.10.2009; then he was sent for ten days' training. On completion of training he was appointed on regular basis on 31.10.2009. He retired from service on 30.11.2019 on superannuation, on attaining the age 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 23 of 60. There is no dispute on the broad facts.
43. The applicant wanted to say that 'he was ordered to officiate as a Postman' of Kallai Post Office from 02.08.2001 onwards and that he rendered uninterrupted service from 02.08.2001 till he was officially appointed as Postman on 22.10.2009. Thus basing on the decisions reported in Direct Recruit Class II Engineers Officers' Association and Rudra Kumar Sain, he said that the period of uninterrupted service rendered by him as Postman from 02.08.2001 till the date of appointment as regular Postman on 31.10.2009 is liable to be reckoned as regular service and he is entitled to get the benefits of CCS(Pension) Rules. But the Annexure-A13 representation was rejected on the simple ground that his date of commencement of service is from 31.10.2009 only. In other words, the respondents refused to reckon his uninterrupted service from 02.08.2001 till 31.10.2009, which, according to the applicant, is illegal and arbitrary.
44. On the other hand, the respondents have denied the claim of the applicant that he was ordered to officiate as a Postman in Kallai Post Office from 02.08.2001. According to them, while working as a GDS Mail Packer at Arakinar, he was engaged in the vacant post of Postman at Kallai for various spells during 2001-2008, on mere working arrangement basis. At that time, he 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 24 had availed leave without allowances from his parent post, that is GDS, and worked as Postman, for which extra expenditure was met towards the cost of engaging substitute. They denied the claim of the applicant that 'he was ordered to officiate as Postman'. According to them, it was a purely temporary stop gap arrangement, which was not continuous or uninterrupted and therefore, his service from 02.08.2001 cannot be reckoned for the purpose. According to the respondents, he has never undergone any selection process prior to 2009, when notification was issued for filling up the posts of 2006 vacancies. Thus he was appointed as Postman only on 22.10.2009, he was sent for training for ten days and was appointed on 31.10.2009 and therefore, having regard to the fact that he was appointed after 01.01.2004, he fell in NPS and therefore, such benefits alone have been granted to him; after availing the benefits, long after retiring from service, as a second thought, the applicant had filed Annexure-A13 representation, which was dismissed for valid reasons.
45. After meticulously considering the rival contentions and also the materials produced by the applicant as well as the respondents, I am of the view that the applicant is bound to fail. Firstly, the applicant has placed implicit reliance on Annexure-A2, which is a charge report. Even though the applicant claims that he was 'ordered to officiate as a Postman from 02.08.2001 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 25 onwards', supporting documents have not been produced. Evidently, Annexure-A2 is not such an order. It is a mere charge report under Rule 267 of the Posts and Telegraphs Financial Hand Book, Volume-1, Second edition. It only shows that charge of Act Postman-II was made over to the applicant on 02.08.2001. It does not say that he was asked to officiate or he was appointed in an officiating capacity against a substantive vacancy of Postman. This document only strengthens the contention of the respondents with regard to the nature of posting of the applicant on 02.08.2001.
46. Secondly, it is the definite case of the respondents that the applicant on each time of his engagement as Postman in Kallai Post Office had availed leave without allowances from his parent post, that is GDS and wages during the period of such working arrangement was treated as extra expenditure towards the cost of engagement of substitute. Even though copies of Annexures-A19 and A23 attendance registers were produced by the applicant, in my view, Annexure-R1(C) relevant pages of the pay bill registers for the period from 2001-2002 to 2008-2009 of Arakinar Post Office throw clear light into the nature of engagement of the applicant as Postman. It is evident from these documents that he had availed various spells of leave without allowances from his parent department since he was engaged to work 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 26 in the post of Postman at Kallai Post Office. In fact, Annexure-R1(C) series documents give clear set back to the attempts of the applicant that he was officiating as Postman in Kallai Post Office.
47. From Annexure-A13 representation of the applicant submitted on 21.10.2021 also it is clear that while working as GDS in Arakinar he had taken leave from the parent post and joined as substitute from 02.08.2001. At that time he had no case that he was ordered to officiate as a Postman in Kallai Post Office. That means, the applicant has considerably improved his version than Annexure-A13 when he approached the Tribunal with the instant O.A.
48. Annexure-A4, the order dated 20.10.2009, whereunder he was deployed for training, also throws light into this area. There, the selected candidates as Postmen were directed to take leave from the GDS post nominating their own substitutes in the normal course and attend the training. Annexure- R1(C) also suggest that he had attended the job of Postman in Kallai Post Office from 02.08.2001 onwards after availing leave without allowance during different spells. A close scrutiny of the documents indicate that such leaves were intermittent only. After availing LWA from 02.08.2001 to 31.08.2001, during September he availed LWA on 01.09.2001, 07.09.2001, 13.09.2001 to 30.09.2001. Thereafter, during entire November and December, 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 27 he had been on leave. No leave is seen availed from 01.03.2003 to 31.03.2003; similarly, no leave is seen availed from 04.05.2003 to 31.05.2003, 01.05.2004 to 14.05.2004. There may be similar other spells also. That means, the period during which he was not availing leave from the parent department, he had been working as GDS. That will not enable him to claim that he was officiating as Postman in a substantive post continuously and uninterruptedly.
49. As noticed earlier, Annexure-A2 is a mere charge report, which is not an order of appointment. There is absolutely nothing to say that he was ordered to officiate as Postman from 02.08.2001 onwards. No appointment order has been produced. Annexure-R1(C), in a way, cuts the root of the contentions of the applicant. In my reading, the O.A. has been built up on the assumption that he was appointed as an officiating Postman in 2001, which has been improved by the applicant throughout, on the basis of mere assumptions and assertions based on Annexure-A2. Annexure-A2 does not support the case of the applicant that he was 'directed to officiate as a Postman' or that he was officiating against a substantive post. It simply shows that the applicant had worked as Postman in Kallai Post Office on 02.08.2001. Nothing more or nothing less can be ascertained from Annexure-A2.
50. Annexure-R1(C) copies of pay bill registers clearly advance the case 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 28 of the respondents. But the applicant has not explained this. On the other hand, evasive reply has been stated by the applicant in his additional rejoinder. Annexure-R1(C) clearly supports the version of the respondents that the applicant had been continuing as a GDS and had availed leave without allowances from that post on different spells and worked as Postman in Kallai Post Office on temporary or ad hoc basis as stop gap arrangement which cannot be taken as substantive appointment.
51. Going by statutes also, I am of the view that the contentions raised by the respondents have to be upheld. Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules deals with commencement of qualifying service. A Government servant will commence service from the date he takes charge of the post. Of course, the proviso states that officiating or temporary service is followed without interruption by substantive appointment in the same or another service or post also should be reckoned for service. But there must be substantive appointment. Annexure-A2 does not support the case of the applicant that he has been substantively appointed in service or post.
52. Secondly, Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules is very clear, it excludes several category of employees including one provided in 2(h), which states that 'persons whose terms and conditions of service are regulated by or under the 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 29 provisions of the Constitution or any other law for the time being in force'. Prior to regular appointment as Postman, the applicant was a GDS. He had started his career as an Extra Departmental Agent. At the time of his alleged deployment as Postman, obviously he was covered by a different statute governing the field. It is very clear that at the time of his appointment as Extra Departmental Agent, he was governed by the Post and Telegraph Extra Department Agents (Conduct of Service) Rules, 1964, later superseded by Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001 etc. That means, he fell within clause 2(h) of the CCS(Pension) Rules and therefore, he could not have been governed by the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
53. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that while rendering the decision in Reghukumar, quoted supra, which has been followed in Annexure-A29, Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules was not considered by the Hon'ble High Court. Rule 2 is very important, which clearly excludes a GDS who is governed by the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, who cannot fall within the ambit of CCS (Pension) Rules.
54. Even otherwise, after having gone through the decision in Reghukumar, I am of the view that the facts are clearly distinguishable. In paragraph 9 of the judgment Hon'ble High Court has noticed that 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 30 'indisputably, the petitioner has continuous officiating service in the Group D post from 30.06.2001 as covered by Ext.P8 up to 31.01.2006, that is the day prior to his regularisation with effect from 01.02.2006 in terms of Annexure-RI read with Annexure A3'. There, the judgment was rendered on the basis of undisputed facts. But, here, the claim of the applicant has been disputed by the respondents, as already stated. It is the definite case of the respondents that the applicant had never officiated in the post of Postman during 2001- 2009. Similarly, Annexure-A29 has also been rendered basing on the decision in Reghukumar. In Annexure-A29 also, it has been stated that the applicant therein had rendered service in an officiating temporary capacity without any interruption by substantive appointment. But such undisputed facts are not available here, even though there is point in the submission that Rule 2 was not considered in Annexure-A29 also.
55. It is a disputed question of fact as to whether the applicant had rendered continuous, uninterrupted service from 2001-2009 till he was regularly appointed. This Tribunal is not expected to take evidence on that aspect. The documents produced by the applicant are only attendance registers. Even that attendance registers indicate that there were interruptions in his posting as Postman. Similarly, as adverted to earlier, Annexure-R1(C) 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 31 clearly indicates that he continued as GDS and his leave without allowances for different spells have been considered during the period which facilitated him to work as Postman in stop gap measure after availing leave from his parent post.
56. Again, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, from Rule 9(19) of the Fundamental Rules, it is clear that only a Government servant can officiate in a substantive post under Rule 13 of the CCS(Pension) Rules. Holder of a civil post is outside the regular civil service and is governed by the separate set of Rules, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules. Therefore, a person holding the post of GDS cannot work in an officiating capacity in a substantive post of Postman, which is governed by CCS (Pension) Rules.
57. There was also rival contentions with regard to the applicability of the case of Najithamol in the present context. While the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it has only prospective operation; according to him, till that time GDS was promoted and appointed against post in the Postal Department. Therefore, till rendering of Najithamol in 2016, that was the Rule. But, relying on the decision in M.A. Murthy v. State of Karnataka and others [(2003) 7 SCC 517] it can be said that such an interpretation can be found incorrect. Once the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the law that posts 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 32 of GDS and posts in the department are different, appointment as Postman on regular basis is a fresh recruitment; therefore, once the law is laid down, unless it is stated that it has only prospective operation, declaration made in Najithamol should be taken as the law from the very inception.
58. After filing of the reply and then the additional reply, the applicant wanted to reject the pleadings of the respondents on technical ground stating that the Senior Superintendent, who is not a party to the proceedings, has filed reply, is incompetent etc. It is true that in both the reply and additional reply statements the Senior Superintendent has stated as working as Senior Superintendent in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Calicut. But no one has a case that there are numerous Senior Superintendents of Post Office in the office of the 1st respondent. Therefore, in the absence of other contentions or materials, it has to be thought that the reply and additional reply were filed by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, who was holding the post as such.
59. In fact this Tribunal is not inclined to go into the highly technical contentions like the one both sides wanted to highlight. It may be true that the respondents have not produced the authorisation given by the superiors 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 33 authorising the Senior Superintendent to file the statement. But even in the absence of such authorisation, for reasons more than one, this Tribunal is inclined to accept the reply as well as the additional reply statements on the basis of the submissions made by the Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, who represented the respondents 1 to 5.
60. I must say that Rule 12 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules and the Government of India (Authorisation of officers for verification of pleadings and other documents to be filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal) Rules, 1993 should prevail over Rule 127 A of the Postal Manual Volume-II. Still, the said Rules, 1993 clearly indicate that officers specified in the schedule annexed to the Rules are authorised to sign all the pleadings and other documents to be filed for and on behalf of the Union of India before the Central Administrative Tribunal established under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The schedule shows that any Group-A officer in any Ministry/department of the Government of India and any Desk Officer in any Ministry/Department of the Government of India can sign the pleadings. Here, the learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that Senior Superintendent holds a Group-A post who is entitled, under the Rules, to sign the pleadings.
61. Referring to Annexure-A29 it was submitted that the Hon'ble High 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 34 Court has reversed the finding in O.A.907/2017, still, paragraph 27 of the order has been quoted in the additional reply. But it is apposite to note that in Annexure-A29 the Hon'ble High Court reversed the finding, nothing has been stated about the competency of the Superintendent of Post Offices to verify the pleadings. As mentioned earlier, this Tribunal is not inclined to go into such hyper technical arguments regarding the competency of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices to verify and sign the pleadings. Such technical objections raised by the applicant are liable to be rejected.
62. Even though learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the O.A. is barred by limitation, at this stage, this Tribunal is not inclined to consider the contention. Firstly, if the contentions of the applicant are upheld, it is a prayer for grant of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, which is a recurring cause of action. Therefore, even though the O.A. is based on a belated representation, such a contention is not liable to be accepted. However, there is substance in the contention that after having availed the benefits of the NPS and also the conditions of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, the applicant is in fact estopped from raising such contentions at a belated hour. Annexures-R1(A) and R1(B) clearly indicate that he was paid severance amounts in two instalments immediately after he was appointed as 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 35 a regular Postman.
63. It is also apparent that, in terms of the NPS, pension contributions must have been made by himself and the employer from November 2009 onwards. The applicant has no case that such contributions were made in compelling circumstances or under protest. Then, on superannuation he has been granted benefits under the NPS. Either at the time when he was appointed in 2009 or even after retirement, he had no case that he is entitled to get the benefits of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Long after, apparently after a second thought only, he had contemplated such a course of action and chose to file a representation and approach this Tribunal. In my opinion, he is estopped from raising the contention that he is entitled to get the benefits of the CCS(Pension) Rules at this belated hour.
64. After having gone through the materials and rival contentions, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. There is absolutely no material to say that he was officiating as a Postman against substantive post from 2001 onwards. On the other hand, while working as a GDS, he was put on stop gap arrangement in different spells to work as a Postman in Kallai and thereafter when regular vacancies arose, he responded to the notification and applied to the post in 2009, undergone selection 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 36 process and then appointed on regular basis on 31.10.2009. Till that time, he was working as GDS, though had occasionally worked as Postman on stop gap arrangement in Kallai Post Office. By virtue of Section 2(h) of the CCS(Pension) Rules, he is excluded from the purview of availing the benefits under the CCS(Pension) Rules.
On these considerations, this Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 10th September, 2025) JUSTICE K.HARIPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER ds 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 37 List of Annexures Annexure A-1. Photocopy of the relevant pages of the Seniority List of Gramin Dak Sevaks of Calicut Postal Division as on 01-01-2005 published by the 1st respondent.
Annexure A-2. Photocopy of the Charge Report dated 02-08-2001 Annexure A-3. Photocopy of the Memo No.B3/43/09 dated 14-10- 2009 of the 1st Respondent.
Annexure A-4. Photocopy of the Memo No. BE/43/09 dated 20-10- 2009 of the 1st Respondent.
Annexure A-5: Photocopy of the Charge Report dated 22-10-2009. Annexure A-6. Photocopy of the Memo No.B3/43/2009 dated 27- 10-09 of the 1st respondent Annexure A-7. True copy Charge Report dated 31-10-2009 Annexure A-8. Photocopy of the Memo No.B2/GL/Dlg dated 20-11- 2019 of the 1st respondent Annexure A-9. Photocopy of the Memo No. C-19/2019-20/CELS dated 06-12-2019 of the 1st Respondent.
Annexure A-10. Photocopy of the Memo No.C-19/2019-20/CELS dated 31-01-2020 of the 1st Respondent.
2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 38 Annexure A-11. Photocopy of the Intimation of Gratuity-Order dated 21-01-2020 of the Asst. Accounts Officer (Pension Section), Trivandrum.
Annexure A-12. Photocopy of the Intimation of Revised Gratuity-
Order dated 04-06/03-2020 of the Asst. Accounts Officer (Pension Section), Trivandrum.
Annexure A-13. Photocopy of the Representation dated 21-10-2021 of the applicant to the 1st Respondent.
Annexure A-14. Photocopy of the Memo No.B3/Misc-NP dated 18- 11-2021 of the 1st Respondent.
Annexure A15. True copy of the Letter dated 25-8-2023 filed by the applicant under the Right to Information Act to the 1st Respondent-(CPIO).
Annexure A16. True copy of the Letter dated 26-09-2023 of the 1st respondent.
Annexure A17. True copy of the Appeal dated 18-10-2023 of the applicant to the Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Calicut.
Annexure A18. True copy of the Order dated 09-11-2023 of the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A19. True copy of the Memo dated 27-12-2023 of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Calicut Division, Calicut along with copy of relevant pages of Attendance Register.
2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 39 Annexure A20. True copy of the 2nd Appeal dated 13-01-2024 of the applicant to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
Annexure A21. True copy of the Facilitation Memo dated 24-01- 2024 of the Central Information Commission, New Delhi.
Annexure A22. True copy of the Appeal dated 25-01-2024 of the applicant to the Central Information Commission,New Delhi with Search Results retrieved from the Official Website.
Annexure A23. True copy of the Letter dated 31-01-2024 furnishing the details in respect of months April, May, June, 2004 and June and September 2007 of the 1st respondent.
Annexure A24. True copy of the Letter dated 18-06-2024 along with Search Result of the applicant to the Central Information Commission New Delhi.
Annexure A25. True copy of the Order dated 23-04-2007 in O.A.No. 704 of 2006 of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Annexure A26. True copy of the Judgment dated 07-07-2008 in WP(C) No. 19182 of 2008 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure A27. True copy of the Judgment dated 22-03-2007 in WP(C) Nos. 3618 and 4956 of 2006 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30' O.A.No.21/2022 40 Annexure A28. True copy of the D.G, Post Letter No. 18-34/92-ED &Trg. Dated 25-11-1993.
Annexure A29. True copy of the Judgment dated 12-02-2025 in OP(CAT) No. 81 of 2023 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure R1(A): True copy of Memo No.B3/2/11/09-10 dated 19.02.2010 Annexure R1(B): True copy of Memo No.B3/2/11/09-10 dated 21.12.2011 Annexure R1(C): True copies of the relevant pages in pay bill registers during the period from 2001-2002 to 2008-2009 ******* 2025.09.10 12:17:19 DEEPA S +05'30'