Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Baldev Singh vs D/O Post on 10 March, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A No. 112/2019
Reserved on: 16.02.2026
Pronounced on: 10.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
BALDEV SINGH AGED 65 YEARS SON OF S. JANG SINGH, RESIDENT
OF B.P.M. KOTLI SABO, BATHINDA, PUNJAB-151401, PRESENTLY
POSTED AS G.D.S. B.P.M. B.O. KOTLI SABO, POST OFFICE,
DIVISION BATHINDA, CIRCLE, PUNJAB. (GROUP-D)
...Applicant
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Sapan Dhir)
VERSUS
1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECREATRY TO THE GOVT. OF
INDIA-CUM-DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK
BHAWAN, SANSAD MARG, NEW DELHI-110001.
2. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, PUNJAB CIRCLE, SECTOR 17,
SANDESH BHAWAN, CHANDIGARH-160017.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, POSTAL DEPARTMENTS,
BATHINDA DIVISION, BATHINDA-151002.
...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC)
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J):
1. The applicants have filed instant O.A under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following relief:
(I) For issuance of an appropriate order or direction to the respondents to grant the applicant pension as per the provisions of CCS MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 2 (Pension) Rules, 1972 by taking into account his entire service as Gramin Dak Sevaks at par with other regular Postal Department's Group 'D' Personnel in view of the judgement dated 09.12.2014 (Annexure A-2) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ petition (Civil) No. 17/2009 case titled as (Vinod Kumar Saxena & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.) as well as order dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 749 of 2015 and other similar cases.
(II) For issuance of an appropriate order or direction to the respondents for implementing the same relief granted in OA No. 749/2015, 3540/2015 and 613/2015 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Branch, Jaipur to the lawful claim of the applicant also by deciding his representation dated 03.10.2018 (Annexure A-5) expeditiously by passing a speaking order in accordance with law and guidelines/laws laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are the applicant was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) at Branch Office Kotli Sabo under Sub Post Office Sangat Division, Bathinda, Punjab Circle on 26.04.1979, and subsequently an appointment letter dated 11.01.1991 was issued to him. Since the year 1979, the applicant has been continuously discharging his duties as GDS BPM and has been distributing postal articles in two villages assigned to him. Apart from this, the applicant has also been entrusted with additional responsibilities including handling Savings Accounts, Recurring Deposits (RDs), Time Deposits (TDRs), Postal Life Insurance (PLI), MGNREGA related work and other MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 3 departmental duties, which he has been performing diligently and efficiently without any blemish in his service record.
3. It is submitted that a large number of similarly situated employees, whose services as Gramin Dak Sevaks were not being counted for pension, had approached various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ultimately reached the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 17/2009 titled Vinod Kumar Saxena & Others vs. Union of India & Others. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.12.2014 treated such employees as holders of civil posts and relegated them to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. Pursuant thereto, several Original Applications bearing OA Nos. 749, 3540 and 613 of 2015 were filed before the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, which were disposed of vide common order dated 17.11.2016, directing that in the case of Gramin Dak Sevaks, who retire as GDS without absorption as regular Group „D‟ staff, pension shall be granted under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and the qualifying service for pension shall be calculated as 5/8th of the period spent as Gramin Dak Sevak.
4. Similarly situated employee Naval Kishore S/o Ram Prasad also approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench by filing OA No. 291/25/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.11.2017, granting him the same relief in terms of the directions issued by the Principal Bench. In view of the aforesaid judgments, the applicant also submitted a representation dated 03.10.2018 to the respondents requesting grant of pensionary benefits in terms of the above decisions.
However, the respondents have neither decided the said representation nor granted the benefit of pension to the applicant till date.
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 4
5. It is further submitted that the applicant has attained the age of superannuation and was retired on 28.02.2019. The financial condition of the applicant is extremely poor as his wife is suffering from serious health problems and his 40-year-old daughter is 100% mentally challenged, due to which the applicant is solely responsible for taking care of the family and meeting their medical and daily expenses. Despite the long and unblemished service rendered by the applicant, the respondents have failed to grant him the benefit of pension, which has caused grave hardship and injustice to the applicant.
6. The respondents have filed written statement contesting the claim of the applicant and stated that the Government framed rules for Extra Departmental (ED) employees and conferred upon them the nomenclature of "Gramin Dak Sevaks" in the year 2001 by introducing the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 with effect from 24.04.2001, which were non-statutory in nature. Subsequently, the said rules were repealed and replaced by the Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 with effect from 18.04.2011. As per the said rules, a Gramin Dak Sevak after retirement is not entitled to pension but is entitled only to ex-
gratia gratuity or any other payment as may be decided by the Government from time to time. In this regard, Rule 6 of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 specifically provides that the Sevaks shall not be entitled to any pension, though they shall be entitled to ex-gratia gratuity or other payments as determined by the Government. Further, Rule 3-A relating to terms and conditions of engagement provides that a Sevak shall be outside the Civil Services of the Union and shall not claim parity with Central Government employees.
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 5 It is further submitted that the Government introduced the New Pension Scheme (NPS) with effect from 01.01.2004 for regular Government employees and, therefore, even the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 are not applicable to regular Government servants appointed on or after 01.01.2004. Moreover, the Government introduced the Service Discharge Benefit Scheme (SDBS), 2011 with effect from 01.04.2011 for Gramin Dak Sevaks in consultation with the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, based on the NPS-Lite Scheme, 2010, wherein both the Department and the Gramin Dak Sevak contribute a matching amount of Rs.200 per month towards the scheme.
It is further submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in its order dated 24.11.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 13675-13676 of 2015 titled Union of India & Others vs. The Registrar & Others (arising out of SLP (C) No. 17035- 17036 of 2013) held that directions issued by the Tribunal for formulation of a scheme granting pensionary benefits to ED employees were not justified as the matter pertains to policy involving financial implications.
The Apex Court accordingly allowed the appeals filed by the Department and the judgment was circulated to all Postal Circles vide letter dated 02.12.2015. In view of the above legal and factual position, the applicant, being an ex-GDS BPM, Kotli Sabo, is not entitled to any pension under the existing rules. However, any admissible benefits such as ex-gratia gratuity or other payments shall be released to him after completion of the required formalities.
7. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating its earlier stand taken in the O.A.
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the material available on record.
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 6
9. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No. 3569/2017 along with connected writ petitions on the indentical issue, whereby, the Hon‟ble High Court has set aside the order of Principal Bench dated 17.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 has held as under:
"27. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
28. In Gandiba Behera (supra), the Supreme Court considered a similar dispute as to whether the services rendered by the employees in the postal department in the capacity of the GDSs ought to be considered or not for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for pension after their selection to regular posts in the said department. The Supreme Court considered the Judgments of P.K. Rajamma (supra), Vinod Kumar Saxena (supra), Union of India & Ors. v. Registrar, (2021) 14 SCC 803, D.S. Nakara (supra), and particularly, Clause 6 of the Rules of 2011, and held as under:
"18. The respondents have also referred to Claus 6 of the 2011 Rules which stipulates:
"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."
19. This particular Rule, making service of this category of employees non-pensionable, however, has been struck down as unconstitutional by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by a decision delivered on 17- 11-2016. We are apprised in course of hearing of these appeals by the learned counsel for the Central Government that the said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged before the Delhi High Court by the Union of India by way of a writ petition, registered as WP (C) No. 832 of 2018. We are also informed that no effective order has as yet been passed by the Delhi High Court in the said writ petition. In the judgment giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 109-110 of 2017, a similar provision of the 1964 Rules, being Clause 4 thereof has also been invalidated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Though the fact that the service of GDS was not pensionable was one of the factors considered by this Court in Union of India v. Registrar, that was not the main reason as to MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 7 why the plea of the GDS was turned down by this Court. We have reproduced above the relevant passages from the said judgment containing the reasoning for allowing the appeal. For adjudication of this set of appeals, thus the proceeding in which the Rule, making service of GDS non- pensionable has been struck down is not of much relevance. The controversy which we are dealing with in this judgment is whether the period of service rendered by a regular staff of the Postal Department while he was serving as GDS would be computed for the purpose of determining his qualifying service to entitle him to get pension.
20. D.S. Nakara has been relied upon on behalf of the respondents in support of their contention that there cannot be any artificial discrimination between two groups of pensioners. But the factual context of the case of D.S. Nakara is different. The discrimination which was challenged in that case related to two sets of retired Armed Forces personnel who were categorised on the basis of their dates of retirement and one set had better terms of pension. The decisions in P.K. Rajamma and Chet Ram are for the proposition that the respondents held civil posts as GDS and were government servants. But again ratio of these authorities cannot be applied to combine the services rendered by GDSs in posts guided by an altogether different service rule with their services in regular employment. The other authority on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondents is a judgment of this Court delivered on 23-8-2017 in Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand. That case arose out of a similar dispute involving a work-charged employee of the State of Uttarakhand who wanted his service in that capacity counted for computing the qualifying service in regular post on the question of grant of pension. This judgment was also delivered by a two-Judge Bench of which Hon'ble Justice Ranjan Gogoi, before his Lordship assumed the post of Chief Justice of India, was a member. The aforesaid decision followed an earlier judgment of this Court delivered in Punjab SEB v. Narata Singh. The latter case arose out of similar claims of work-charged employees who were engaged in the Irrigation and Power Department of the State of Punjab. The relevant provision of the Punjab Civil Services Rules allowed MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 8 temporary or officiating service under the State Government without interruption followed by confirmation in the same or another post to be counted in full as qualifying service but excluded the period of service in work-charged establishment. The aforesaid Rule was struck down by the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The decision of this Court in Narata Singh was however founded on two circulars which permitted counting the period of service rendered by a work- charged employee in the Central Government or the State Government for the purpose of computing pensionary benefits as an employee of the Punjab State Electricity Board. The respondents in these appeals also cannot be held to be work- charged employees. The said category of employees i.e. work-charged employees are engaged against specific work and their pay and allowances are chargeable to such work. But the scope of respondents' work as GDS was part-time in nature. They had the liberty to engage themselves in other vocations, though the work they involved in carried an element of permanency. The fact that they were engaged as GDSs which constituted civil posts cannot by implication treat their service having whole-time characteristic to be an extension of their service rendered in the capacity of GDSs. The subsequent service was guided by different service rules having different employment characteristics. The selection of an employee in regular post cannot also be pre-dated because of delay on the part of the authorities in holding the selection process. We do not agree with the view of the High Court on this count in judgments which form subject of appeal in Civil Appeal No. 5008 of 2016, SLP (C) No. 16767 of 2016, Civil Appeal No. 8379 of 2016 and Civil Appeal No. 10801 of 2016. Service tenure of an employee in a particular post cannot be artificially extended in that manner in the absence of any specific legal provision.
21. In Union of India v. Registrar, a plea similar to that made by the GDSs for computation of service in that capacity was specifically rejected. There is no specific rule or even administrative circular specifying computation of service period rendered as GDS to fill up the gap in the qualifying service requirement of the respondents in this set of appeals. The only circular on which the respondents laid stress on was MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 9 the 1991 circular which was considered in Union of India v. Registrar. As the post of GDS did not constitute full-time employment, the benefits of the said circular cannot aid the respondents. Thus, there being a clear cut finding on similarly placed employees, we do not think we can apply the ratio of the judgment delivered in Habib Khan in support of the respondents' plea. An unreported judgment of the Karnataka High Court delivered on 17-6-2011 in Union of India v. Dattappa has also been cited on behalf of the respondents. This judgment went in favour of counting the period of service as extra-departmental agent for qualifying service in relation to pension and the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court proceeded on the basis that for all intents and purpose, the employment was continuous in nature and it was not as if it was from one service to another. But, this view has not been accepted by this Court in Union of India v. Registrar.
XXX
26. Having regard to the provisions of the aforesaid Rules relating to qualifying service requirement, in our opinion the services rendered by the respondents as GDS or other Extra- Departmental 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 fill 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 Union of India v. Registrar, though the incumbent therein (being Respondent 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 24-11-2015 had protected his pension though the appeal of the Union of India was allowed.
27. 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 MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 10 capacity of GDS could be added to their regular tenure in the Postal Department for the purpose of fulfilling the period of qualifying service on the question of grant of pension."
(Emphasis Supplied)
29. We are aware that in Gandiba Behera (supra), the Supreme Court was informed of the pendency of the present batch of writ petitions, as well as the fact that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2011 had been struck down by the learned Tribunal, which order is under challenge before us. The Supreme Court, however, held that the pendency of these petitions would have no bearing, inasmuch as the service rendered by the GDSs, even otherwise, cannot qualify for the purposes of the grant of pension to them.
30. In our view, therefore, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Gandiba Behera (supra) completely answers the dispute raised before us, in favour of the petitioners.
31. Only for the sake of completeness, we would also refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Paras Ram (supra), wherein the Supreme Court set aside the Judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, and held that the respondent therein would not be entitled to claim any pension on superannuation in view of the fact that his service in the post of regular Group „D‟ employee falls short of 10 years.
32. In O.Ramachandran (supra), the High Court of Madras, while adjudicating upon a similar question of law, disposed of the said writ petition by observing as under:
"35. Though Mr.K. Ravi Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to implement, Hon'ble Justice Talwar's Committee's Report, we are of the view that, it cannot be done, in view of the specific stand of the respondents, in the counter affidavit, which we have explained and it is for the respondents, to decide. Admittedly, the writ petitioners are doing only part time job, and between Gramin Dak Sevaks and regular Group - D servants, in Department of Posts, there is clear variation in service conditions. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the length of service, nature of duties, service rendered by the Gramin Dak Sevaks in the villages, across the country, they should be paid MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 11 pension, on par with Group „D‟ categories, in postal department, and Rule 6 of Gramin Dak Sevak Rules, 2011, denying pension, is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contended that the policy of the Government is discriminatory, for the reasons stated supra, this court is not inclined to accept the said contentions.
36. For the reasons stated supra, there are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost."
33. Recently, the High Court of Rajasthan in Trilok Chand Jain (supra), also disposed of a similar batch of writ petitions by following the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gandiba Behra (supra) and the High Court of Madras in O.Ramachandran (supra). The court in Trilok Chand Jain (supra) held as under:
"10. These writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, there is no provision either in the Rules o f 1964 or in the Rules of 2011 as amended from time to time, for grant of pension to the persons working on the post of Sevaks/GDS; secondly, in view of the judgment passed in the matter of Union of India and O.Ramachandran (both supra), in our view the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable."
34. As the issue raised before us in the present batch of petitions is squarely covered by the aforesaid Judgments of the Supreme Court and the other High Courts, with which we respectfully agree, we need not delve further into the submissions of the learned counsels for the respondents, which, in our opinion, have already been duly considered and adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court and the other High Courts.
35. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the Impugned Orders dated 17.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal are hereby set aside, while the Impugned Order dated 08.08.2019 of the learned Tribunal is upheld.
36. It is held that the services rendered by the respondents as GDSs shall not be entitled to be counted for the purposes of pension or the grant of other reliefs, including regularisation.
37. The present petitions, along with the pending applications, are disposed of in the above terms.
38. There shall be no order as to costs.
MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH 12
10. The claim of the applicant is merely on the basis of dictum of order dated 17.11.2016 passed by the Principal Bench in O.A No. 749/2015. The said order of Tribunal has been set aside by the Hon‟ble High Court vide order dated 31.10.2025, therefore, there is no merit in the claim of the applicant. The Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has also allowed the bunch of Writ Petitions preferred by the UOI in Civil Writ Petition No. 9840/2019 and connected matters vide order dated 25.02.2025 observing that there is no provision either in the rules of 1964 or in the Rules of 2011 as amended from time to time for grant of pension to the persons working on the basis of Sevaks/GDS. The order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal has also been set aside by the Hon‟ble High Court of Rajasthan. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the instant O.A. Accordingly, the instant O.A is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No orders so as to costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) Member (J) *ms MANDEEP SINGH MANDEEP SINGH