Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
M Suseela vs Department Of Posts on 5 February, 2026
1 OA 310/01440/2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA 310/01440/2025
Dated Thursday, the 5th day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, Member (A)
M. Suseela
44, Pothiyampallam,
Sukkaliyur Post,
Thirumanailaiyur,
Karur-639003. ... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. N. Nithianandam
Vs
1. Union of India rep. By
The General Manager,
Postal Accounts & Finance,
TamilNadu Circle,
Chennai 600008.
2. The Head Postmaster,
Department of Posts,
Karur Head Post Office,
Karur Division, Karur-639 001. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC
2 OA 310/01440/2025
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:
"to direct the Respondents to disburse the pension due to the Applicant and to include the service rendered by the Applicant for the period of 10.06.1978 to 14.09.2009 as GDS Official in the Department of Posts, while calculating the total service period of the Applicant with the Department of Posts and award Pension accordingly and pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and render justice"
2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The Applicant served as a Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS) with the Department of Posts from 10.06.1978 and was promoted to the cadre of Postman in 2009 under the 25% seniority quota, wherein her prior GDS service was reckoned for eligibility to appear in the departmental examination. She rendered more than 20 years of dedicated service as a GDS and thereafter continued to serve satisfactorily as a Postwoman until her superannuation on 31.04.2020.
The Applicant has not been sanctioned or paid any pensionary benefits to date, even after submitting a formal representation on 09.02.2021 seeking release of the same. Hence this OA.
3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 3 OA 310/01440/2025 respondents submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the Judgment dated 31.10.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 3569/2017 and connected cases, and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the OA.
4. When the same was put forth before the learned counsel for the applicant, he reiterated the grounds raised in the OA and could not convert the same.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record and scrutinised the whole conspectus of the case.
6. We find that the issue in the present OA is no more res integra and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 3569/2017 and batch has passed the order which is reproduced below:
"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 Clause 4 OA 310/01440/2025 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 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 5 OA 310/01440/2025 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 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 6 OA 310/01440/2025 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 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 7 OA 310/01440/2025 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 8 OA 310/01440/2025 service rendered by the respondents in the 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 9 OA 310/01440/2025 Dak Sevaks in the villages, across the country, they should be paid 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.
10 OA 310/01440/2025
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."
7. In view of the aforesaid decision, we find that the applicant has failed to make out a case. In the result the OA is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.
(M. L. Srivastava) (M. Swaminathan)
Member (A) Member (J)
05.02.2026
Digitally signed
P. ARUNA SOWBHAGYA by P ARUNA
COURT MASTER SOWBHAGYA
CAT, CB
Date: 2026.03.05
10:16:09 +05'30'