Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Ram Prakash vs Union Of India on 21 December, 2023
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00491/2019 Ram Prakash Vs. U.O.I &Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 332/00491/2019
ORDER RESERVED ON: 07.12.2023
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 21.12.2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-Judicial
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
Ram Prakash, aged about 61 years,
Son of Bhola,
R/o Raj Nirwachan Ayog, U.P. & Sthaniya Nikay,
23-C, Gokhale Marg,
Lucknow presently retired Ex MTS R.M.S. 'O' Division,
Lucknow.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Paltoo Ram Gupta
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary Department of Post,
Ministry of Communication,
Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
U.P. Circle, Lucknow.
3. The Director Postal Service,
Lucknow Region, Lucknow.
4. Senior Superintendent RMS 'O' Division,
Lucknow-226004.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Smt.Prayagmati Gupta,
Shri R. K. Verma,
Shri Raj Kumar Singh
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative In this case the applicant is seeking the following reliefs in regard to retirement benefits:
Page 1 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00491/2019 Ram Prakash Vs. U.O.I &Ors.
(i) Direct the opposite party No. 2 to 4 to allow the DCRG and pensionary claim commuted value of pension w.e.f. from 31.03.2018 along with 12% interest on arrears of allowances considering 21 years regular service of applicant.
(ii) Pass any other relief deems, fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case of O.A. in favoaur of the applicant in the interest of justice.
(iii) To allow OA with costs.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant joined in the post of ED Mailman under the respondents on 21.11.1997 (Annexure 3 to the OA). He was promoted in MTS cadre vide order dated 01.09.2011 (Annexure 5 to the OA) where he joined on 12.09.2011 (Annexure 6 to the OA). The applicant retired on 31.03.2018. He applied for pension benefits in response to the letter dated 10.10.2017 (Annexure 1 to the OA) issued by the respondents. Not having received the pension and gratuity, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3.1 It is the contention of the applicant that his claim for pension and gratuity is valid on the ground that he was borne on ED Mailman cadre and not on the GDS Mailman cadre. ED Mailmen are engaged through the Employment Exchanges and perform duty at Railway Mail Service Office with pay and allowances at par with central government employees and are covered under rule 154 (a) of the Manual of Appointment & Allowances extracted below:
"154 (a) Selected categories of whole time contingency paid staff, such as Sweepers, Bhisties, Chowkidars, Chobdars, Malis or Gardeners, Khalassis and such other categories as are expected to work side by side with regular employees or with employees in work charged establishment, should, for the present, be brought on to regular establishments of which they form adjuncts and should be treated as "regular" employees."
3.2 The Gramin Dak Sewaks (GDS), on the other hand, are appointed under the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules and are not treated at par with the central government employees as they work in village post offices Page 2 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00491/2019 Ram Prakash Vs. U.O.I &Ors. for 4 to 5 hours a day and get a fixed amount as salary without other benefits.
3.3 It is further contended that in Mhole Ram vs Union of India &Ors in OA No. 134 of 2013, vide order dated 08.08.2014, pension and gratuity have been allowed as also in OA No. 383/2003 Ram Narainvs Union of India &Ors and in OA No. 383/2014 Ram Hit vs Union of India &Ors. 4.1 The respondents, on the other hand, state that the applicant was engaged as extra departmental agent (now called Gramin Dak Sewak) on 21.11.1997. The applicant's engagement as GDS was under terms and conditions of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011. The applicant's engagement as GDS was terminated on 11.09.2011 on his absorption/promotion on the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) and as a consequence thereof he was paid severance amount of Rs. 20,000/- under the 'Service Discharge Benefit Scheme' vide sanction memo dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure 2 to the CA). After appointment as MTS, the applicant was covered under Central Civil Service Rules. 4.2 It is further stated by the respondents that after appointment of applicant as MTS on 12.09.2011, he became a subscriber to the New Pension Scheme (NPS) which is under the control of the Central Record Keeping Agency, NSDL. The respondents state that gratuity of Rs. 74,766/- has already been paid to the applicant vide sanction memo dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure 5 to the CA). Earlier service rendered by the applicant was not counted for qualifying service for retiral benefits in accordance with rule 6 of the GDS Rules. The pension case of the applicant has been forwarded to the General Manager (Finance) & Postal Accounts UP Circle, Lucknow vide letter dated 26.07.2018 (Annexure 4 to the CA).
4.3 It is contended by the respondents that the cases cited by the applicant, viz., Mhole Ram, Ram Narayan and Ramhit are different from the case of the applicant as these cases related to casual workers. Page 3 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00491/2019 Ram Prakash Vs. U.O.I &Ors.
5. We have heard both the parties. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not received the severance amount of Rs. 20,000/- as claimed by the respondents. No document has been furnished by the respondents showing that the applicant was treated as GDS cadre during the period from 1996 to 31.12.2010.Further, the facts and circumstances of the applicants' case are similar to Ram Hit vs Union of India &Ors decided by this Tribunal on 15.02.2019. These contentions were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 6.1 The first issue to be decided is whether the applicant is governed by rule 154 (a) of the Manual of Appointment & Allowances as stated by the applicant or by the Gramin Dak Sewak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 as stated by the respondents. A perusal of rule 154(a) brings out that the category mailman is not mentioned therein. On the other hand, a perusal of memo dated 17.07.2017 issued by the respondents shows that sanction for payment of Rs. 20,000/- has been accorded "to Shri Ram Prakash M.T.S. O/o H.R.O. R.M.S. 'O' Division Lucknow on account of Severance Amount payable to him for service rendered as GDS from 21-11- 1997 to 31-03-2011 on completion of minimum eligibility period of 10 years." A copy of the memo dated 17.07.2017 (Annexure 2 to the CA) is marked to Shri Ram Prakash, M.T.S., O/o H.R.O. R.M.S. 'O' Division Lucknow. Thus, on the basis of the documentary evidence available, it cannot be concluded that the applicant does not belong to GDS covered under GDS Rules and belongs to a separate mailman category covered under rule 154(a) of the Manual of Appointment & Allowances.
6.2 The second issue is whether the applicant is entitled to pension and gratuity for 21 years of serviceof the applicant. As noted above, for the period of service rendered as GDS, the applicant is governed by the GDS Rules, rule 6 of which states as follows:
Page 4 of 6
CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00491/2019 Ram Prakash Vs. U.O.I &Ors.
"The Sevaks shall not be entitled to any pension. However, they shall be entitled to ex gratia gratuity or any other payment as may be decided by the Government from time to time."
Thus we find that the applicant is not entitled to pension for the service rendered under the GDS Rules. It is for the period of service as MTS beginning with effect from 12.09.2011 that the applicant is entitled to pension. Here, it is observed that the case of the applicant has been processed by the respondents vide letter dated 19.02.2019 quoting PRAN Card No. 110082312143 (Annexure 6 to the CA).
The applicant is entitled to gratuity. It is noted that the respondents have sanctioned an amount of Rs. 74,766/- for payment towards gratuity vide memo dated 31.01.2019 (Annexure 5 to the CA).
6.3 Coming to the court cases cited, a perusal of the judgment dated 08.08.2014 in Mhole Ram attached with the OA as Annexure-7 reveals that it is the case of a contingency paid employee who was granted temporary status and subsequently, in 1992, was treated at par with temporary Group D employees. It is observed that the case was covered under the Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme and, therefore, was on a different footing than the instant case where the applicant has been absorbed in MTS. A similar position obtains in regard to the clutch of cases, including Ram Hit, decided by this Tribunal where the applicants were contingency paid staff and this Tribunal directed the respondents to regularize their services and thereafter consider their cases for grant of consequential benefits, including pension and pensionary benefits.
7.1 In view of the facts and circumstances above, this OA is disposed of with the direction that the respondents shall make payment of pension, gratuity, and severance allowance already sanctioned and such other service benefits to the applicant as admissible as per rules, if not made Page 5 of 6 CAT, Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00491/2019 Ram Prakash Vs. U.O.I &Ors. already, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order with interest calculated as per the bank rate on the delayed payments.
7.2 Pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of.
7.3 The Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya
Page 6 of 6