Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
U Chandran vs M/O Communication & It on 21 April, 2023
OA No.1414 of 2019 1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/01414/2019 Dated Wednesday the 29" day of March Two Thousand Twenty Three CORAM : HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J) U. Chandran Son of Udaiyar, No.52C/6, Sundarapuram Street, Manamadurai, Sivaganga District Pin-623 606 tee Applicant By Advocate M/s.R.Malaichamy Vs 1. Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of Communications & IT Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi --- 110 001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai -- 600 002. 3. The Postmaster General, Southern Railway (TN) Madurai - 625 002. 4. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Sivaganga Division, Sivaganga---630561. we Respondents By Advocate Mr. SU.Srinivasan 2 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:\ i. To declare Rule 6 of GDS (C&E), Rules, 2011 as null and void and violative of Articles 14,16 & 21 of Constitution of India, and ii. To call for the records of the 4" respondent pertaining to his order which is made in No.C2/2/Pension/dlgs dated 25.09.2019 and set aside the same, consequent to;
iii. Direct the respondents to grant pension to the applicant under the provisions of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 for the service rendered about 35 years as GDS; and iv. to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell is as follows:
The applicant has entered in the office of the respondent as EDBPM, known as GDS BPM (Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster) in the year 1982. Thereefter, the applicant was appointed as GDS BPM Muthanendal BO with effect from 26.06.1988. By order dated 11.03.1991, as a result of reinstatement of Sri.K.Udayakumar, based on CAT/Madras Judgement as EDBPM, Kilaperungarai, the applicant also reinstated in service and his service as a EDBPM with effect from 01.01.1982 to 18.04.1988 will be reckoned towards counting his seniority, length of service for all purposes, including Gratuity etc., Thereafter, the applicant came to be appointed as postman on 21.07.2007 on regular basis and subsequently, almost after 35 years of continuous service as GDS along with regular appointment as postman he has been superannuated on 29.06.2019 under the provisions of Fundamental Rules (FR) 56 (a) and Government of India decision (1) under Rule 35 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. According to the applicant, he had rendered more than 26 years of service as a GDS and thereafter 12 years of service as Postman. The applicant seeks to relay on the order dated 17.11.2016 of Principal Bench in O.A.No.749 of 2015. The claim of the applicant is that as similarly situated person had been granted relief therein, the applicant is also entitled to such relief. Therefore, the applicant has submitted various representation to the respondent, however, the 3 same has been turned down on the ground that the said order passed by in O.A.No.749 of 2015 along with other connected O.A.No.613 of 2015 dated 17.11.2016 will only applicable to those applicant who have filed the said OA before the Principal Bench and also stated that no order is received from the Directorate to effect that pension shall be granted under the provision of GDS service period to be counted for the purpose of pension. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed this present OA and prayed for the aforesaid relief.
3. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance through to their counsel and filed their reply statement and contended that the applicant is not entitled for the said relief relying upon the orders passed by this Principal Bench as the said order has been challenged in the Delhi High Court where the matter is still pending, The respondent has further contented that the order of ~ the Principal Bench was per incuriam in as such as the Hon'ble Madras High Court had already upheld the validity of the GDS (C&E) Rules 2011 by order dated 17.10.2016 in WP.No.13500/2016 as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the Jaw in the matter of Gandiba Behera and as such the OA is liable to be dismissed.
4, The applicant has filed rejoinder to rebut the stands taken by the respondent in their counsels.
5. The respondent has also filed the additional affidavit.
6. Heard Learned Counsel M/s.R.Malaichamy for applicant and MrSU.Srinivasan SCGSC Learned Counsel for respondent. Perused the records and relevant documents.
7. It is to be noted that while considering the issue the Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A.No.749 of 2015 by order dated 17.10.2016 has declared Rule 6 is in direct conflict with the Judgements in Vinod Kumar Saxena (Supra), P.K.Rajamma (Supra) and Dattappa (supra) cases, as it debars Gramin Dak Sevaks from pension. Therefore declared Rule 6 as ulta vires and directed the respondent government to amend the same. The said order has been challenged by the respondent a a 4 before the Hon'ble High Court Delhi in W.P. (C) 832 of 2018, W.P. (C) 3493 of 2018, W.P.(C) 834 of 2018 and W.P. (C) 835 of 2018, the same are pending.
8. 'The Learned counsel for the applicant would, however, submit that similar cases had been disposed of by this Tribunal directing the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicants therein in the event of the law on the subject finally being declared in favour of the applicants similarly placed and, therefore, a similar order may be passed in this case also. He would cite the order passed in O.A.No.1139/2017 and batch dated 28.11.2018 and 0.A.No.1093 of 2017 dated 11.12.2018 in this regard.
9. Keeping in view the above orders, this OA is disposed of with the following direction, the impugned order dated 25.09.2019 passed by the respondent No.4 is hereby, quashed and set aside and respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 in the event of the law being finally settled in favour of persons similarly placed as the applicant herein with regard to his entitlement for grant of pension under the said rules.
ae