Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Gangadhar Gahenaji Sonawane vs D/O Post on 12 December, 2019
[Mary No.1 g8t CENTRAL, ADMINTS PRaprie TRIBUNAL ; MUMBAT BENCH, CLIRCULT BEWe: SITTING Ar AURANGABAD SISRY No. lsei ORIGINAL APBLICATTON No. 212/844/20195 Dated this Th ursday, the }2° day of December, 2019 CORAM: R, VIJAYRUMAR 7 MEMBER (ADMIN ISTRATIVE) RAVINDER RauR , MEMBER (gupT CTA} Gangadhar S'o Gahenati Sonawane, Age 70 years, Occ: Retired, Rio Opposite Premlata Kirana Store, Bhoi Wada, MIU Corner, Aurangabad, District Aurangabad 431 BOL, : ». Applicant (By Advocate Shri S.8.Kulkarni) VERSUS Union of India, Through its Secretary. Department of Post, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi 110 O01. peed. > 2. The Chief Past Master General, Maharashtra Cirels, Mumbai 400 001. 3, The Senior Superintendent of Past Offices, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 431 001, _. Respondents ORAL ORDER Per: R.VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER (A)
x " fay 3 . % 4 Fo sy sean ps a 3 Reard Shri S, S.Kulkarni, +GRENEd counsel < Sa y .
LOY UNE applicant. & : & 2 PR de = Sty] pr here SARS on led hay . LAS apolication Has peen Le Ox s t PRES RS Sy ye o - GS = tied SS, iLL BOTS inder Section 1s OF Lhe < Ae ee re 2 nt "< OF nea, ¥ BS AGninistrakiva "Eieunels Aob, aes Seeking "S.A. The Original Application may kindly be allowed,
8.B. The respondent No.1 to 3 may Kindly be clirected to consider the case of applicant in terms of Rule 88 of the Rules 1972.
B.C, Quashed and set aside the impugned order Passed by respondent No. dated 01/03/2019 and appropriate directians may kindly be issued to 8 od swiate directions may kindly be issued to waward minimum pension to the applicsnt.
her orders mey eS So ee oe. es wet yes ap. Any other & such fur i & pas ssed in favor of the applicant to W 'hich he is deemed Hi and entiled.
oo. Appropriate cost may kindly be awarded."
8. The application has obsen heard at the admission stage. The applicant had commenced service with the respondents as GDS on ©S.02.1876 and then was appointed as Postman by orders of the respondents dated 23.12.1999 and thereafter, retired on 31.03.2009 after ompleting eight years and eleven months of service in Postal Service as Postman. He has Filed representations with the respondents on 20,09.2018 and 29.03.2019 seeking pension by considering his GDS service but this has been oe replied by the respondents in the impugned orders dated O021,.88.26019 stating that this case did not fall within the CCS (Pension) Rules, i972 since he had not completed ten years of service. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. Vs. Gandiba Behera, Civil Appeal NG.8497 oF 2619 decided on 68.42.2619 which records the view taken by the Hon'ble Apex : y - Uary No.1581 Court and its direction and held as below in paragragh Nos.i9, 29 and 21:
"19. Having regard to the provisions of the aforesaid Rules relating to qualifying service requirement, in gur apinion the services vendered by the respondents as GDS or other ExtraDepartmental Agents cannot be factored in for computing their qualifying services in regular posts. under the postal department on the question of grant of pension. But we also find many of the respondents are missing pension on account of marginal shortfall in their regular service tenure. This should deserve sympathetic consideration for grant of pension. But we cannot trace our power or jurisdiction to any legal principle which could permit us to fl up the shortfall by importing into their service tenure, the period of work they rendered as GDS or its variants. At the same time, we also find that in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. The Registrar & Anr. (supra), though the incumbent therein (being respondent no.2) had completed nine years and two months of service, the Union of India had passed orders granting him regular pension. This Court In the order passed on 24th November 2015 had protected his pension though the appeal of Union of India was allowed.
20. For the reasons we have already discussed, we are of the opinion that the judgments under appeal cannot be sustained. There is no provision under the law on the basis of which any period of the service rendered by the respondents in the capacity of GDS could be added to thelr regular tenure in the postal depariment for the purpose of fulfilling the period of qualifying service on the question of grant of pension,
21. We are also of the opinion that the authorities ought to consider their cases for exercising the power to relax the mandatory requirement of qualifying service under the 1972 Rules if they find the conditions contained in Rule &8 stand fulfilled in any of these cases. We do not accept the stand of the appellants that just because that exercise would be prolonged, recourse to Rule 88 ought not to be taken. The said Rules is not number specific, and if undue hardship is caused to a large number of employees, all of their cases ought to be considered. If in the cases of any of the respondents' pension order has already been issued, the seme shall not be disturbed, as has been directed in the case of Union of India & Ors. v Registrar & Anr. (supra). We, iy Rary No. 168.
est texeyr | &S e maya ate Syren ot Boye rnd a allow thess appaals amd set aside the simyte sna cl Wy x UDOT Appeal, Sh Qiect to the following (3) fo the event the Central Government or the postal department has already issued any order for pension to any of the respondents, then such pension should not be disturbed. in issuing this cirection, we are following the course which was directed to be se by Ors. v. Registrar & Ant (apa).
ah
(ii) In respect of the other respondents, who have not been issued any order for nension, the concerned minisiry may consicer a as ta whether the minimum qualifian ng se eryice Rule can be relaxed in their cases in terms of Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules."
4. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also referred to Rule 88 of the cCS (Pension) Rules, i972 which reads as below:
"88, Power to relax.
Where any Ministry or Department of the Government is Satisfied that the operation of these rules, causes undue hardship in any particular case, that Ministry or Department, as the case may be, may, by order for reasons to be recorded in writing, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such exceptions and conditions as it may consider necessary for + dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner Provider that no such order shall be made except with the concurrence of the Department of Pension & Pensioner's Welfare."
5. At this stage, it is not possible for this Tribunal to take a decision on behalf of the Administrative Authorit ey at what level of exemption of aperation of rule would e 5 Diary No.1é3i reasonable for relaxation of rules. Further, these powers solely Lie with the Administrative Authority and it is expected that the respondents will take an early decision in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In such an event, the case oF the applicant was completed eight years and eleven months of service as per his statement may also be considered appropriately in accordance with the rules and guidelines,
6. In the aforesaid terms, this oA is disposed of without expressing any view on legal pleas. No costs, (R. Vijaykumar) Member (Administrative) (Ravinder Kaur) _ Member (Judicial) kmg*