Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mamata vs Deptt Of Posts on 13 November, 2025
OPEN COURT
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
NAINITAL CIRCUIT BENCH, NEW DELHI.
(This the 13th day of November, 2025)
Original Application No.4037/2024
Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Mamata (female) aged about years, W/o late Kartik Kanjilal,
R/o B-20 Transit camp Rudrapur Distt Udham Singh Nagar.
.....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Kishore Rai
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Ministry of Communication, Department
of Posts, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Director, Postal Department, Department of Post, Dak Bhawan
New Delhi.
3. Chief Post Master General, Uttarakhand Circle Dehradun.
4. Senior Superintendent of Posts, Nainital, Dak Mandal, Nainital.
5. Inspector of Posts, Rudrapur Sub Division Rudrapur, Distt
Udham Singh Nagar.
. . .Respondents
By Advocate: Shri T. C. Aggarwal
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (A) Heard Shri Kishore Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri T. C. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
22. This Original Application u/s 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed seeking following relief:-
"i. A direction to the respondents to grant post retiral dues of the husband of the applicant.
ii. A direction to the respondents to grant family pension to the applicant w.e.f. the death of the husband of the applicant i.e 14.06.2020.
iii. Any other relief to which the applicant is found entitled may also very kindly be granted to the applicant."
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, are that the applicant's husband joined the respondent department as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) on 01.08.1977. He was given several additional responsibilities, including working as an Outsider Postman in Rudrapur and later taking additional charges of Group D and Postman posts. He continued to perform these duties successfully and received salaries for the same. From 2002 to 2019, he worked continuously as a Postman and later as an Outsider at Pantnagar till the age of 62 years, rendering a total of about 45 years of service in the department with an unblemished record.
3.1 Despite working against sanctioned posts and performing the same duties as regular employees, his services were never regularized. He had filed an Original Application (OA No. 866/2022) before the Tribunal seeking regularization and back wages, but he passed away on 14.06.2020 during the pendency of the said OA. His wife (the present applicant) was substituted, and later withdrew that application with liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars and has filed the present original application.
3.2 The applicant relies on several Supreme Court judgments, including State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari, Rajkaran Singh, Jagjit Singh, Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, and Anand Mani Prakash Tripathi, which hold that employees who have served continuously for many years in sanctioned posts, performing duties identical to regular employees, are entitled to regularization, equal pay for equal work, Page 2 of 8 3 and pensionary benefits. The applicant contends that her husband's long, uninterrupted, and satisfactory service entitles him (and consequently her) to these benefits under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as denial of the same is arbitrary and unjust.
3.3 Since no other effective remedy is available, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking regularization of her late husband's service and grant of post-retiral benefits similar to regular government employees.
4. We need not labour much since the issue is no more res integra and recently the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of National Federation of Postal Employees & Another Vs Union of India in WP.No.1323/2021, & Batch of cases, order dated 31.10.2025, has held that services rendered by the employees as GDSs shall not be entitled to be counted for the purposes of pension or the grant of other reliefs, including regularisation. We would like to extract the relevant portion of the judgement which reads as under:-
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 6 of the 2011 Rules which stipulates: lates: "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 ofthe Tribunal has been challenged before the Delhi High Page 3 of 8 4 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 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 inregular 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 Page 4 of 8 5 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 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 is 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.
Page 5 of 8 6Thus, 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 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 Page 6 of 8 7 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 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."Page 7 of 8 8
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 Behera (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 of 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.
5. In view of the judgement cited supra, and judicial proprietary we do not have any hesitation in the dismissing the present OA.
NEELAM KUMARI SINGH
6. In the result the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (M. Swaminathan)
Member-A Member-J
/Neelam/
Page 8 of 8