Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Prakash Gopalan vs Department Of Posts on 20 January, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. No.180/00209/2024
Tuesday, this the 20th day of January, 2026
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Prakash Gopalan, aged 62 years, S/o. Gopalan C.N., Ex-Postal Assistant,
Thodupuzha H.O., Thodupuzha 685 584, Residing at Chiraparampil,
Manakkad P.O., Thodupuzha., Pin: 685 608.
-Applicant
[By Advocate: Mr. Vineeth Komalachandran]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to Government,
Department of Posts, Government of India, New Delhi-110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General, O/o. The Chief Postmaster General,
Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033.
3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, O/o. The Superintendent of Post
Offices, Idukki Postal Division, Thodupuzha-685 584.
-Respondents
[By Advocate : Mr. Sreejith N, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 04.12.2025, the Tribunal on
20.01.2026 delivered the following:
Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30'
O.A.No.209/2024 2
ORDER
Applicant is a former Postal Assistant in Thodupuzha Head Office under the 3rd respondent. His official profile shows that he had served Indian Air Force for 20 years from 27.06.1980 to 30.06.2000. Thereafter, he was discharged from that service and was re-employed; while working as Lower Division Typist in 17 BN NCC in Pala, was called for an interview by the 3 rd respondent as recommended by the Employment Exchange for being appointed as Postal Assistant. His application was considered and was appointed as Postal Assistant. He joined the Postal Department after being relieved from the NCC BN office at Pala. He had worked in NCC office as LD Typist from 24.12.2003 to 03.11.2004. He had responded to the communication issued by the 3 rd respondent for the post of Postal Assistant and that was how the Employment Exchange had recommended his name.
2. According to the applicant, the post of Postal Assistant was notified as per Annexure-A8 communication dated 18.09.2003 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and IT Department of Posts. Even though he had started working as Postal Assistant only on 04.11.2004, after the introduction of the National Pension System, since the post was notified as per Annexure-A8 dated 18.09.2003, by virtue of the subsequent Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 3 Official Memoranda, Annexure-A13, A15 etc., he had made representations for switching over from the National Pension System to the non-contributory Old Pension System, that were rejected by the impugned orders and aggrieved by the same, he has approached this Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
(i) to quash Annexure A1, Annexure A1(a), Annexure A17 and Annexure A23,
(ii) to direct the 3rd Respondent to extend the benefit of statutory pension to him in terms of Annexure A13, Annexure A15 and Annexure A21 instructions, and
(iii) grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Tribunal may deem fit to grant.
3. According to the applicant, after appointed as Postal Assistant in Thodupuzha, he was sent for induction training in Bangalore, which was conducted from 16.11.2004 to 10.02.2005. Thereafter, his period of probation was declared as satisfactorily completed and he worked as such till his date of retirement on 31.07.2021. Meanwhile, even though he had responded to the Official Memorandua issued by the respondents and prayed for switching over to the old pension Rules under the CCS (Pension) Rules, that was rejected Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 4 without giving valid reasons and that made him to approach the Tribunal with the aforestated reliefs:
4. According to the applicant, even though he was appointed as Postal Assistant only on 04.11.2004, what is important is the date of notification, which was issued much prior to the date of introduction of the National Pension System on 22.12.2003. The Annexure-A8 circular was published on 18.09.2003. It is very clear from various communications issued by the respondents that he was considered against the vacancy of 2002. Thereafter, while working as Lower Division Typist in the NCC at Pala, on being appointed as Postal Assistant as recommended by the Employment Exchange, he tendered his resignation and when got relieved from the NCC office, moved over to the Postal Department. In the circumstances, Annexure-A1, A1(a), A17 and A23 are bad in law and liable to be interfered with.
5. The applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking the above reliefs, mainly on three considerations. Firstly, even though he was appointed and joined as Postal Assistant on 04.11.2004, it was towards the vacancy of the year 2002 that the Annexure-A8 notification was issued much prior to the introduction of the National Pension System on 01.01.2004. Secondly, it is Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 5 submitted that he had joined as Postal Assistant after submitting technical resignation, which was accepted by NCC, Pala and thus the respondents cannot now say that his past service cannot be reckoned.
6. Thirdly, it is submitted that he was moving from the NCC under the State Government to the Postal Department as Postal Assistant, on being appropriately relieved from the former department, NCC under the State Government, is a pensionable service so that mobility is available to him and that the Office Memoranda, Annexures-A13 and A15 are applicable to him, he has satisfied the conditions and therefore the stand of the respondents that he was appointed as per a notification issued after the commencement of the National Pension System, that the Annexure-A8 cannot be reckoned for the purpose etc. cannot be upheld on its face value.
7. That means, the applicant wanted to highlight that he was appointed against the vacancy which had arisen in 2002, he joined as Postal Assistant after the technical resignation was accepted by the former employer, the former employment was also a pensionable service and therefore he is justified in seeking the benefit of the CCS(Pension) Rules and the rejection of his request for switching over is unjust, arbitrary and illegal.
Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 6
8. The respondents have filed a very detailed reply statement challenging the maintainability of the O.A. According to them, the applicant had joined the respondent establishment on 15.02.2005. After completing the training he was selected in Ex-Servicemen quota against the vacancy of 2002, which was notified only on 03.03.2004 through Annexure-R1. Pursuant to the Annexure-R1 notification the applicant submitted Annexure-R2 application, which was received by the 3 rd respondent on 15.03.2004. According to them, his application was considered as a fresh, independent application without recording details of his past service. His application for Postal Assistant was sent in his personal capacity which confirms that he had not obtained permission of the concerned administrative authority at the appropriate time. The NOC is dated 15.03.2004. On that date, Annexure-R2 application was received by the respondents.
9. According to the respondents, under Rule 13(2) of the CCS(Pension) Rules also, the applicant is not entitled to get his prior service counted for the purpose of pension. Moreover, it is evident from Annexure-A5 that the applicant, at the time of joining the respondent organisation, had no intention to carry over his prior service with the Postal department and had Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 7 obviously waived the same. It is also pertinent to note that it is mentioned in Annexure-A5 letter that necessary entries will be made in service book of the individual under proper attestation. There is no mention of sending of the service book to the new employer as is done in the case of technical resignation for the purpose of counting the prior service.
10. According to the respondents, the NOC was produced for the purpose of reckoning his past service and also for getting the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. If the NOC was obtained earlier, as claimed by the applicant, it could have been produced along with the application, which was not done. Moreover, from the Annexure-R4 order of appointment itself, it is clear that he would be governed by the New Pension Scheme, which has not been called in question at the time of appointment or subsequently within a reasonable period of time.
11. Further, according to the respondents, the applicant had raised claim for counting his past service for the first time only on 01.12.2009, when Annexure-R5 representation was given. Even at that time, he had not made mention about the NOC. Annexure-R5 representation was rejected by Annexure-R6 order passed by the 3rd respondent, against which he preferred Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 8 Annexure-R7 appeal before the Director of Postal Services. Then only he made mention about the NOC. Any how, Annexure-R7 representation was rejected through Annexure-R8 order of the Director of Postal Services on 01.06.2010. That also was not challenged by the applicant before any authority at the appropriate time.
12. Later, pursuant to Annexure-A13 Office Memorandum he gave Annexure-A14 representation. The applicant was not entitled to get any option under Annexure-A13. It was on a misreading of the recitals of the memorandum or on a deliberate attempt to mislead the Tribunal that he has claimed benefit under Annexure-A13. Even though the vacancy year was 2002, the notification was issued only on 03.03.2004 under Annexure-R1, which does not permit the applicant to claim any benefit under the Old Pension Scheme. Annexure-A16 representation to convert his pension from NPS to OPS in accordance with Annexure-A15 was examined in various levels of the department and since he had failed to produce documents to prove his relieving from NCC following technical resignation, his claim was rejected and the reply was given to him through Annexure-A17, which cannot be called in question.
Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 9
13. Referring to Annexure-R9 OM, it is submitted that the applicant is not entitled to get the benefit of the same. The applicant cannot lay claim to the Old Pension Scheme based on Annexure-A8. Annexure-A8 notification was not at all an employment notification or on advertisement to the public. It was an internal communication upon which the number of vacancies for the year 2002 in the Circles, for the purpose of recruitment was circulated. It was specified there that the Circle Heads have to re-allocate the vacancies to the recruitment divisions. Thus the Circle head who is the recruiting authority, after considering all other aspects with regard to the recruiting process, had to publish the employment notice, which is evident from Annexure-R1. The employment notice was issued only on 03.03.2004, which is the only notification binding the public. It is not a re-notification as claimed by the applicant. Therefore, Annexure-A8 has no relevance; even though it was for the vacancy year 2002, the selection process had commenced only on 03.03.2004 and the applicant was appointed much later, on 15.02.2005 after the completion of the induction training. The claim for counting his past service in the NCC is badly barred by limitation. Such a claim has been raised through the O.A. after more than 14 years and therefore, on the very same Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 10 ground the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
14. Moreover, referring to Anneuxres-R10 and R11 it is submitted that the applicant was treated as a fresh employee in the Postal Department and his past services were never counted. The applicant also did not intend to carry over his past service. That was why Annexures-R10 and R11 particulars were incorporated in the service book. His earlier service book was not forwarded to the department. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to count the benefits of Annexures-A11 and A15 and the benefit of mobility was not available to him.
15. Since the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on the basis of the notification issued on 03.03.2004 and was appointed long after on 15.02.2005, he is not entitled to get the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme and his prayer for switching over to the Old Pension Scheme cannot be allowed. Thus the respondents have sought for dismissing the O.A.
16. I heard Sri.Vineeth Komalachandran, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. N.Sreejith, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents, in great detail.
17. The respective contentions were reiterated by them. The learned Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 11 Standing Counsel had filed a brief note also.
18. It is not disputed that the applicant is an Ex-Serviceman having nearly 20 years of service in the Indian Air Force. He was appointed as Postal Assistant while working as Lower Division Typist in the 17 BN of NCC at Pala. But he had only a short span of service as Lower Division Typist in NCC, from 24.12.2003 to 03.11.2004. Immediately after started functioning as Lower Division Typist, his name was recommended by the Employment Exchange for the post of Postal Assistant in the Postal Department. It appears that, thereafter, he made an application directly to the 3 rd respondent, without resorting to submit the application through proper channel. He was appointed as Postal Assistant on 04.11.2004. Thereafter, he underwent induction training from 16.11.2004 to 10.02.2005. These are undisputed facts. He was appointed as Postal Assistant on 04.11.2004, by the time the National Pension System was introduced by virtue of the notification issued on 22.12.2003. All appointments made after 01.01.2004 are governed by National Pension System. However, later, various clarifications were issued enabling the appointees who satisfy certain conditions to switch over to the Old Pension Scheme despite the fact that they were appointed after 01.01.2004. The Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 12 applicant claims that he should be treated as one appointed prior to 01.01.2004 and is entitled to get the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme. The respondents have disputed the claim.
19. Adv.Sri.Vineeth Komalachandran has submitted that what is important is Annexure-A8 communication dated 18.09.2003, which should be taken as the notification of the vacancy for appointment. If Annexure-A8 is taken as notification for employment, he would get the benefit of Annexures- A11, A13, R9 etc. Learned counsel also relied on the decisions in Pitta Naveen Kumar and others v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and others [(2006) 10 SCC 261, J and K Public Service Commission etc. v. Dr.Narinder Mohan and others [AIR 1994 SC 1808], order of a Single Bench in O.A.985/2024 of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP(CAT) 197/2017 besides the common order of this Tribunal in O.A.1063/2018 etc. dated 16.09.2025.
20. According to the learned counsel, Annexure-R1 notification was issued based on Annexure-A8 communication. Referring to the common order of this Tribunal dated 16.09.2025, the learned counsel pointed out that by virtue of that order, except in the case of the applicant, similarly placed others Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 13 have been granted benefits.
21. On the other hand, according to Sri. Sreejith, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, Annexure-A8 has no relevance here. Annexure-A8 is not a notification to the public. It did not confer any right to the public to apply for a post. It is only an identification of vacancies and is an internal communication. With such a communication public will not get any right of appointment. Following Annexure-A8, Annexure-R1 was issued for the information of the public.
22. Countering the Single Bench decision of the Principal Bench of this Tribunal he placed reliance on a Division Bench order of Bangalore Bench in O.A.279/2024 and also a Division Bench decision of this Tribunal in O.A.59/2024 dated 06.11.2025, in which I was a party. According to the learned Standing Counsel, if the Tribunal has any doubt on the point, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench for consideration. By producing a copy of the order dated 08.01.2026 in OP(CAT)153/2025 he said that order of this Tribunal dated 16.09.2025 stands stayed by the Hon'ble High Court.
23. Two fold contentions have been raised by the applicants while claiming for the benefit of the CCS(Pension) Rules 2021. On a plain reading of Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 14 the O.A. though it appears that he wants to switch over to the Old Pension Scheme by virtue of Annexure-A13, on close scrutiny it is clear that he wanted to say that his combined service, that is service as Lower Division Typist in the NCC under the State Government should also be reckoned for the purpose of switching over to the Old Pension Scheme. On the second front, his arguments are based on Annexure-A8 dated 18.09.2003, which is a communication issued from the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and IT Department of Posts to all Principal Chief Postmasters General/Chief Postmasters General. So, according to the applicant, by virtue of this communication, posts have been identified thus, in Kerala, there were 181 vacancies for the year 2002, for which directions were issued for initiating action. According to the applicant, basing on Annexure-A8, Annexure-R1 notification was issued. Moreover, highlighting various communications he pointed out that the applicant was appointed against vacancy of the year 2002 and therefore he is entitled to get the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
24. Claims for combining the service in NCC under the State Government with that of the Postal Department as Postal Assistant are built upon rather weak pillars. The contentions of the applicant on this aspect are Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 15 rather weak and uncertain. Arguments based on Annexures-A11 and A15 are rather feeble. There are numerous incongruities in the matter of securing Annexure-A3 NOC from the NCC. Arguments regarding technical resignation allegedly tendered by him from the NCC, before accepting the appointment in the Postal Department are also inconsistent.
25. As rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel, Annexure- A3 is dated 06.04.2004. Annexures-R2 and R3 indicate that he had submitted the application to the Postal Department on 12.03.2004. Apparently, on that date Annexure-A3 NOC was not issued. Secondly, Annexure-A3 had come to the picture only when Annexure-A7 appeal was filed by him before the Director of Postal Services against Annexure-R6 order rejecting his plea for granting the benefit of combined service. Annexure-R7 was rejected through Annexure-R8 on 01.06.2010, which was not challenged by the applicant. It is only through these proceedings he wanted to claim benefits of combined service, which cannot be accepted.
26. From Annexure-R2 it is clear that he was making the application for Postal Assistant directly to the 3rd respondent, otherwise than through proper channel. If he wanted the appointment in Postal Department in Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 16 continuation of service in the NCC, such an application would have been forwarded through the then office attaching the NOC with the application.
27. It is very obvious that his contentions based on technical resignation in NCC are liable to be rejected. In Ground-B of the O.A., we can see that the applicant is striving to make out that he had tendered technical resignation in NCC department. I have already pointed out that he had never intended to combine the service in the NCC department with that of the Postal Department. Convincing materials are not produced to say that he had tendered technical resignation. It may be true that there is no break in service. He was relieved from NCC department on 03.11.2004 and then joined the Postal Department on 04.11.2004 itself. But he had applied for the post of Postal Assistant in the Postal Department without the knowledge of the NCC department, without giving prior intimation for obtaining the NOC.
28. Worsening the case of the applicant, even the NCC department has given divergent versions regarding the technical resignation allegedly tendered by the applicant. While the communication of the Commanding Officer, Annexure-A19 dated 16.03.2021 shows that he had tendered technical resignation, Annexure-A20 communication dated 22.04.2022 of the Additional Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 17 Director General of NCC says that:
"..........Therefore it is not resignation of past service, and had never tendered any resignation request. Besides, as per Service Rules of Kerala Govt, there is no provision for 'Technical resignation' and the provision of relieving duties is granted to the Permanent State Employees in order to retain their lien in the State Service until they are confirmed.............. "
29. That means, it is very patent that there was no resignation as 'technical resignation' tendered by the applicant before relieving from the NCC department.
30. May be realising these aspects, the learned counsel for the applicant did not press the claim that he is entitled to combine the services of the NCC and the Postal Department.
31. Turning to the second aspect also, the applicant is bound to fail. As rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, Annexure-A8 is not an employment notification. It is a communication issued by the Department of Posts to the Principal Chief Postmasters General/Chief Postmasters General of the respective State/Union Territories communicating the number of vacancies, which are to be filled up by direct recruitment for the year 2002 basing on the recommendations of the scrutiny committee. This document has Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 18 never appeared in public domain. It is an internal communication between the Department of Posts and other functionaries. It is not intended for the public to act upon. On the basis of Annexure-A8 a prospective employee cannot make any representation or application to a particular post.
32. Right of a candidate to aspire for a post crystallizes only through Annexure-R1 employment notification issued by the Chief Postmaster General of Kerala. In Annexure-A8, sanction has been accorded for filling up 181 posts of different cadres in Kerala including 107 Postal Assistants. The 2 nd respondent in the Annexure-R1 notification has further divided and distributed such vacancies to various divisions under him, stipulating details of filling up of different categories like SC/ST, OBC, PH and Ex-Serviceman. The applicant had applied for one post of Ex-Serviceman to be filled up by the 3 rd respondent. In other words, only when Annexure-R1 employment notification issued on 03.03.2004 had appeared in public view, the applicant obtained a right to contest for the post. It appears that, meanwhile, the 3 rd respondent had also addressed the District Employment Officer, Idukki and secured a list of persons in the Ex-Serviceman category and thus he filed Annexure-R2 application.
33. Even if all the communications like Annexures-A11, A13, A15 or R9 Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 19 are considered, it is evident that what is important is the commencement of selection process and not the vacancy year. Here, no doubt, the applicant was considered for the vacancy arose in 2002. But the proceeding for filling up the same was initiated only on 03.03.2004 when Annexure-R1 was issued by the 3 rd respondent. Before Annexure-R1, no step was initiated by the 3 rd respondent for filling up the post. Even the 3rd respondent was in the darkness about the Annexure-A8 before getting communication from the 2 nd respondent. The benefit of Annexure-A13 is available only to those who fall within the illustrations in paragraph 3 of the OM. The applicant cannot claim benefit of paragraph 7 also.
34. Similarly, since the applicant was not appointed prior to 01.01.2004, he cannot claim the benefit of Annexures-A11 or A15.
35. Moreover, in order to draw the benefit of Annexure-R9, he should have been considered against post or vacancy, which was advertised/notified prior to 22.12.2003.
36. After having been appointed as Postal Assistant through Annexure- R4 dated 17.08.2005 the applicant is governed by the New Pension System. Merely for the reason that he was appointed against a vacancy of 2002, he Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 20 cannot claim any benefit of the subsequent Office Memoranda issued by the departments.
37. The decision in Raja Narasaiah Zangiti or Dr.Narinder Mohan have turned up on its own facts and cannot be applied to the facts of the case. I have also gone through the order of this Tribunal in O.A.207/2024 which has been made mention in OP(CAT)197/2017, which also had turned up on its own facts.
38. Turning to the orders of this Tribunal in O.A.1063/2018 etc. and that of the Single Bench of the Principle Bench in O.A.985/2024, I have reasons to differ. As mentioned earlier, a Division Bench of this Tribunal, in which myself was a party, has rejected a similar claim in O.A.59/2024, basing on Annexure-R9 O.M., though RA is filed against that order. Similarly, Division Bench of the Bangalore Bench has considered an identical question in O.A.279/2024 and held that what is important is the employment notification issued to the public. In paragraph 13 of the order, the Tribunal has held as follow:
"...............Hence, pre-recruitment internal correspondences between the Department and the UPSC prior to the vacancy/recruitment/ appointment notification are not relevant for the purpose of Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 21 determining the eligibility for old pension scheme, as it is very clear from the document placed before us. The posts for which the applicant had applied and pursuant to which he was selected were advertised only on 23.10.2004 by the UPSC much later than the cut- off date of 22.12.2003. Hence, we are clear in our mind that the case of the applicant is not covered by the O. M dated 3.3.2023............."
39. I am in respectful agreement with the above conclusion.
40. Moreover, as stated earlier, one of the orders of this Tribunal in O.A.265/2024 dated 16.09.2025 stands stayed by the High Court in OP(CAT)153/2025.
41. In the circumstances, referring the matter to a Division Bench does not arise.
The applicant has failed to make out a case. The Original Application is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, this the 20th January, 2026)
JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30'
O.A.No.209/2024 22
List of Annexures
Annexure A1: A true copy of the communication No. Rectt/12-2/OA- 22/2024 dated 01.04.2024 issued by the 2nd Respondent Annexure Al(a): A true copy of the Email Communication dated 01.03.2024 issued by the 3rd Respondent Annexure A2: A true copy of the requisition form No. B1/3/rectt/Dlg/02 dated 09.03.2004 issued by the 3rd Respondent to the District Employment Officer, Idukki Annexure A2(a): A true copy of the reply letter No. 272262 dated 19.03.2004 issued by Employment Exchange with list of candidates including this Applicant Annexure A3: A true copy of the No Objection Certificate dated 06.04.2004 issued on behalf of the NCC Directorate, State Wing (K & L) by Dy Director General NCC Annexure A4: A true copy of the communication No. B1/3Rectt/Dlg/02 dated 29.10.2004 issued by the 3rd Respondent Annexure A5: A true copy of the Order No. 8993/A3-Est/2004/NCC dated 20.11.2004 issued by the Deputy Director General, NCC to this Applicant Annexure A6: A true copy of the Letter No 112/1/Est/2004 dated 25.11.2004 issued by the Commanding Officer to the 3rd Respondent dated 11.11.2004 issued by the 3rd Respondent Annexure A7: A true copy of the Letter No. B1/23/Dlg/II dated 11.11.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent Annexure A8: A true copy of the instruction No. 60-16/2002-SPB-I dated Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 23 18.09.2003 along with the vacancy position published on behalf of the 1st Respondent issued under RTI Act Annexure A9: A true copy of the Letter No. B1/3/Dig/II dated 10.02.2005 issued by the 3rd Respondent Annexure A10: A true copy of the communication No. B1/Confn dated 26.02.2007 issued by the 3rd Respondent Annexure A11: A true copy of the O.M. No. 28/30/2004-P&PW (B) dated 28.10.2009 issued on behalf of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Annexure A12: A true copy of the service certificate dated 20.11.2009 issued by the Commanding Officer, NCC Annexure A13: A true copy of the O.M. No. 57/04/2019-P&PW(B) dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare Annexure A14: A true copy of the representation dated 04.03.2020 submitted by the Applicant to the 3rd Respondent Annexure A15: A true copy of the O.M. No. 28/30/2004-P&PW(B) dated 11.06.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Annexure A16: A true copy of the representation dated 22.06.2020 submitted by the Applicant to the 3rd Respondent Annexure A17: A true copy of the Communication No. B1/3/Rlg/VI dated 28.02.2022 issued by the 3rd Respondent Annexure A18: A true copy of the communication No. 0751/B3- Est/2021/NCC dated 11.02.2021 from the Addl Director General NCC Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 24 Annexure A19: A true copy of the communication No. 112/1/Est dated 16.03.2021 issued by the Commanding Officer, NCC to the 3rd Respondent, obtained under RTI Act Annexure A20: A true copy of the communication No. 0751/B3- Est/2021/NCC dated 22.04.2022 issued by the Additional Director General, NCC to the Postmaster General, Central Region, Kochi issued under RTI Act Annexure A21: A true copy of the O.M. No. 28/90/2022-P&PW(B)/8297 dated 02.10.2022 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions Annexure A22: A true copy of the option dated 30.12.2023 submitted by the Applicant Annexure A23: A true copy of the communication No. CPGRAM/Dlg dated 30.10.2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent Annexure A24: A true copy of the email dated 20.02.2024 submitted by this Applicant to the 3rd Respondent Annexure A25: A true copy of the Memo No. 34/NPS to OPS/2023-24 dated 30.11.2023 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Manipuri Division Annexure R1- True copy of the notification by Circle Office (CO) letter No.Rectt/4-3/2003 dated 03.03.2004.
Annexure R2- True copy of the application dated 12.03.2004 submitted by the applicant.
Annexure R3- True copy of the postal cover.
Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30' O.A.No.209/2024 25 Annexure R4- True copy of the appointment order dated 17.08.2005. Annexure R5- True copy of the representation dated 01.12.2009. Annexure R6- True copy of the order dated 28.12.2009. Annexure R7- True copy of the appeal dated 06.01.2010. Annexure R8- True copy of the order dated 01.06.2010 of the Director of Postal Services, Kochi.
Annexure R9- True copy of the OM no.57/05/2021-P &PW(B) dated 03.03.2023.
Annexure R10-True copy of the first page (Bio data) of the service book of the applicant.
Annexure R11-True copy of the relevant page of service book of the applicant.
*********
Deepa S 2026.01.20 16:53:22+05'30'