Mani Jacob v Union of India and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 30TH ASWINA, 1943** **OP (CAT) NO. 64 OF 2021** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA.NO.662/2019 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE** ## **TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONER/APPLICANT:** **MANI JACOB, AGED 62 YEARS,** **W/O. M. GEORGE THOMA, RETIRED POSTAL ASSISTANT, PONKUNNAM POST OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY DIVISION, RESIDING AT MANNAMPLACKAL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM P.O, (PH. 9446022545).** **BY ADVS.M/S. MARTIN G.THOTTAN & VARGHESE JOHN** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, NEW DELHI 110 001.** - **2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL , KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.** - **3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, CHANGANASSERY DIVISION, CHANGANASSERY-686 101.** - **4 SENIOR ACCOUNTS OFFICER (PENSION), KERALA CIRCLE, GPO COMPLEX, TRIVANDRUM-695001.** - **BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA** **THIS OP(CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 2 :- ## **(C.R.)** ## ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ. =============================================== ## OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021 [ _arising out of impugned order dated 17.2.2021 in O.A. No. 180/00662/2019 on the file of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench]_ =============================================== Dated this the 22[nd] day of October, 2021 ## J U D G M E N T ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The petitioner herein has filed the instant Ext.P-2 Original Application O.A. No. 662/2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, with the following prayers: " - _i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Annexure A5 and quash the same._ - _ii. Direct the respondents to sanction and disburse the retirement benefits due to the applicant including retirement gratuity, regular pension and commuted value of pension._ - _iii. Declare that the applicant is entitled for 12% interest for delayed payment of gratuity, commutation amount with effect from 30.06.2019 to the date of actual payment and to direct the respondents accordingly._ - _iv. Award costs of and incidental to this application._ - _v. Grant such other relief, which this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "_ ## 2. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 3 :- impugned Ext.P-1 final order dated 17.2.2021 in O.A. No. 662/2019 by holding that action of the respondents in the O.A. in withholding the DCRG is illegal and _ultra vires_ the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, inasmuch as the events in question have happened more than 9 years prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner, and the provisions of said Rule permit action only in case where the past events have taken place within a period of 4 years prior to the date of retirement of the incumbent concerned. However, while granting relief, the Tribunal has ordered that only the withheld amount of gratuity coming to Rs.7,22,616/will carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of Ext.P-1 order, viz, 17.2.2021, up to the date of actual payment. Being aggrieved by the said verdict of the Tribunal, to the limited extent it has not granted interest to the applicant on the undisputed amount of gratuity from the date of her retirement up to the date of actual payment of said undisputed amount on 3.1.2020, as well as the non grant of interest on the withheld amount of gratuity for the period from date of retirment up to the date of order of the Tribunal, the original _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 4 :- applicant has preferred the instant original petition before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers: - " - _i. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P1 and quash the same to the extent it grants interest of 6% only from the date of the order._ - _ii. Direct the respondents to grant interest of 12% on the withheld retirement benefits including gratuity at the rate of 12% w.e.f. 30.06.2019 till the date of actual payment._ - _iii. Grant such other further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case._ - _iv. Award cost of and incidental to this Petition."_ 3. Heard Sri.Martin G.Thottan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the O.P./applicant in the O.A. and Sri.P.Vijayakumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents in the O.P./respondents in the O.A. 4. The applicant, while holding the substantive post of Postal Assistant at Ponkunnam Post Office, Kottayam district, had retired from service on 31.5.2019. Eventhough, the petitioner had made the requisite application for disbursal of pensionary benefits, but the gratuity benefits due to the petitioner were withheld as per the impugned Anx.A5 order dated 16.8.2019 issued by the 3[rd] respondent _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 5 :- Superintendent of Post Offices on the ground citing that the petitioner should immediately refund an amount of Rs.7,22,616/which is the loss attributed to her as subsidiary offender and failing which the 3[rd] respondent will be constrained to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is common ground that as per the provisions contained in the CCS (Pension) Rules, though provisional pension is sanctioned in such cases, the provisional pension so sanctioned and what is disbursed as provisional monthly pension is the full monthly pension but, without right of commutation of pension and the DCRG will also be withheld. It is only after the finalization of proceedings under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, will the matter be taken up later for passing orders on the claims of the withheld pensionary benefits. In the instant case, the applicant has been given the monthly full pension as the monthly provisional pension and pension commutation right was withheld. So also, the full amount of DCRG was withheld. 5. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and based on the _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 6 :- pleadings and materials on record, found that the factual aspects which are the foundation for Anx.A-5 order are past events which have happened between 30.10.2009 and 30.3.2010, and the incident came to light when deposit collection agent had committed suicide on 20.10.2010. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has found out as a matter of fact that the alleged incidents regarding defrauding of the Postal Department came to the knowledge of the Postal authorities in the year 2010 itself. The petitioner, while substantively holding the post of Postal Assistant, was asked to officiate in the post of Deputy Postmaster of the area concerned for a period of 3 months from 30.10.2009 and 30.3.2010. Even going by the case of the respondents, the petitioner is treated by them as a subsidiary offender in the abovesaid allegations, and the persons who have primarily committed the alleged defrauding happened to be the other officers concerned. The allegation raised is that the petitioner is having supervisory jurisdiction and that there has been lapse in her supervisory functions, etc. The relevant provision of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, confers power on the President to _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 7 :- withhold or withdraw pension. The relevant provision of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, more particularly Sub Rule (1), Sub Rule (2) and Sub Rule (6) thereof reads as follows _[The other Sub Rules_ _of Rule 9 may not be very relevant and germane in the facts of this case]_ : ## _"_ _**9. Right of President to withhold or withdraw pension**_ _1) The President reserves to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including service rendered upon re-employment after retirement :_ _Provided that the Union Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed :_ _Provided further that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn the amount of such pensions shall not be reduced below the amount of Rupees Three thousand five hundred per mensem._ - _(2) (a) The departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service :_ _Provided that where the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to the President, that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the President._ - _(b) The departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement, or during his re-employment, -_ - _(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President,_ - _(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution, and_ _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 8 :- - _(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the President may direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service._ ## _(3)_ _**Deleted**_ _(4) ...........................xxxx...........................xxxx........................................................ (5) ...........................xxxx...........................xxxx........................................................_ _(6)For the purpose of this rule, -_ - _(a) departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges is issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from an earlier date, on such date ; and_ - _(b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted -_ - _(i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made, and_ - _(ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date the plaint is presented in the Court."_ 6. A reading of Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules would make it clear that the President is conferred with the power to reserved to himself the right of withholding a pension or gratuity or both, either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for a specified period, and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if, in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 9 :- misconduct or negligence during the period of service, including the service rendered upon re-employment after retirement. However, Clause (a) of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 will not have any relevance in the instant case inasmuch as, it is common ground that no departmental proceedings has been initiated as against the applicant on the present issues, prior to her retirement. Clause (b) of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 would specifically mandate that in case the departmental proceedings if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirment or during his re-employment, then the same shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the President, and shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution, etc. Clause (b)(iii) of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 is not relevant in our case. In the instant case, it is very doubtful whether sanction of the President/authority, authorized by the Union Government, has been obtained as conceived in Rule 9(2)(b)(i) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Be that as it may, the heart of the matter is in relation to the applicability of Sub Rule (2)(b)(ii) of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 10 :- mandates that if departmental proceedings has not been instituted while the Government servant was in service, then the same shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution. It is common ground that no departmental proceedings as conceived in Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, has been taken against the petitioner on the present allegations at any time prior to her retirement. The applicant has retired from service on 31.5.2019. Anx.A-5 proceedings has been issued only on 16.8.2019. So obviously, the contemplated departmental proceedings in terms of Rule 9 has been proposed or initiated for the first time after the retirement of the applicant. That be so, it is mandatory that the subject matter of the allegations or events which form the basis for the proposed departmental action should not have taken place more than 4 years before such institution. Assuming that the said proceedings has been initiated as per Anx.A-5 on 16.8.2019, then the allegations or events which are subject matter of the proposed departmental proceedings should not have taken place more than 4 years before that. It is common ground that the _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 11 :- allegations and events have taken place during the period from 30.10.2009 to 30.3.2010, and the alleged fraud was revealed to the official respondents in the year 2010 itself. Hence, it is clear like the blue sky that the statutory bar envisaged in Rule 9(2)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules will act with full rigour and force in the facts of the instant case. In other words, the proposed departmental proceedings in terms of Anx.A-5 or any other proceedings in consequence thereof, is totally illegal and _ultra vires_ the provisions contained in Rule 9, more particularly Clause (b)(iii) of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Tribunal has taken this view in the matter and the said view cannot be legally faulted by us in any view of the matter. Further, the respondents in the O.A. have not challenged Ext.P-1 verdict of the Tribunal. Therefore, the said findings in favour of the applicant has become final and conclusive. However, we have examined the correctness of those findings only to ensure that the Tribunal has rendered said findings correctly. We fully concur with the said findings of the Tribunal on that score. 7. Now, the dispute between the petitioner herein and the _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 12 :- respondents herein lie on an extremely narrow compass. The full amount of DCRG due to the petitioner was Rs.11,49,454/-. The withheld amount of DCRG came to Rs.7,22,616/-. Hence, the indisputable portion of the DCRG was Rs.4,26,840/-. The respondents could have atleast disbursed the undisputed amount of DCRG coming to Rs.4,26,840/- immediately after the retirement of the petitioner. On the other hand, the said amount of Rs.4,26,840/was actually released to the petitioner only on 3.1.2020, though the petitioner had retired from service on 31.5.2019. Further, the actual relief granted by the Tribunal to the petitioner is only that the withheld amount of DCRG of Rs.7,22,616/- will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the limited period from the date of the Tribunal's order (17.2.2021) up to the date of disbursal of said amount. Both sides have apprised us that the said balance amount of Rs.7,22,616/along with interest thereon coming to Rs.6,058/- was actually disbursed to the petitioner on 13.4.2021. 8. The main plea of the petitioner is that the Tribunal should have actually awarded interest not only as ordered in the impugned _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 13 :- order, but also should have ordered interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the undisputed amount of Rs.4,26,840/- from the date of retirement of the petitioner (31.5.2019) up to date of its release (3.1.2020), and also that the withheld amount of DCRG of Rs.7,22,616/- should also have carried interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of retirement of the petitioner (31.5.2019) up to date of release of said amount. 9. The said pleas now canvassed by the petitioner have been opposed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. One of the contentions taken by them in their statement is that the incident of defrauding is a serious one, and that the petitioner who was officiating as Deputy Postmaster during the relevant period has failed to exercise her supervisory jurisdiction, and therefore this Court may not grant any interest, etc. Certain allegations are also made in the said statement filed by the respondents on the basis of Anx.R-8 that the petitioner had played an evasive role before the respondents by giving Anx.R-8 statement dated 30.5.2019. _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 14 :- 10. The petitioner has filed a reply dated 8.10.2021 to the abovesaid statement filed by the respondents in this O.P. In the said reply affidavit dated 20.10.2021 filed by the petitioner, it is stated that she was having meritorious service and has not been imposed with any penalty throughout her service and all what she can now recollect about her long career is that one memo was issued against her in the early part of her service on an allegation that she had failed to report in time when she was deputed for training at Mysore, and the said memo was later dropped. More cardinally, Sri.Martin G.Thottan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would strongly urge that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was all throughout substantially holding only the post of Postal Assistant, and she had officiated in the post of Deputy Postmaster in the area concerned, for the limited period from 30.10.2009 to 30.3.2010. Further that, the office of the Deputy Postmaster is situated at Kanjirapally, whereas the Sub Post Office where the alleged defrauding has taken place is situated in a different place, viz, Pampadi. Further, it is stated that the main officer responsible for supervisory function in a case of this nature is the Sub _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Postmaster concerned. It is asserted by the petitioner in her reply affidavit that there has been no lapse on the part of the petitioner in verifying the various statements of accounts received from various post offices concerned. The petitioner also prepared and send the half margin memos to the competent authorities as and when the same is required. Hence, it is pleaded by the petitioner that there was no basis whatsoever for the Circle Level Enquiry Committee to declare that the petitioner is a subsidiary offender. Further that, going by Anx.A7 departmental instructions, even if the Circle Level Enquiry Committee had declared one official as a subsidiary offender, withholding of pensionary benefits is against the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules. Further, Sri.Martin G.Thottan, learned counsel submits that no misconduct can be attributed to the petitioner for having submitted Anx.R-8 letter dated 30.5.2019, wherein it is only stated that she is completing the superannuation age of 60 and that she is retiring from service on the next day, and that she is not in a mental stage to give any consent regarding financial irregularity that happened at Velloor for the period from _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** 30.10.2009 to 31.3.2010, and that she had worked as Deputy Postmaster at Kanjirapally, etc. 11. Going by the nature of the issues raised in this case, we need not get into the process of resolution of abovesaid new pleas raised by the respondents in the O.P. which have been countered by the petitioner in the O.P., except to say that mere submission of Anx.R-8 cannot be said to be a grave wrong or mistake committed by the petitioner. Anx.R-8 was given on 30.5.2019, which is one day before she was to attain the superannuation on 31.5.2019, etc. Going by the admitted facts on both sides, there cannot be any dispute that the proposed departmental proceedings in terms of Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, after the retirement of the petitioner was illegal and _ultra vires_ the provisions contained in Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, more particularly Clause (2)(b)(ii) thereof, for the aforementioned reasons. Therefore, the respondents never had any legal justification to issue an order in the nature of Anx.A5 and other proceedings to withhold the gratuity due to the petitioner. 12. Taking note of these aspects, we are of the view that the _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ **==> picture [36 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** Tribunal should have granted interest not only on the withheld amount of gratuity for the limited period from the date of order of the Tribunal up to the date of payment, but also should have ordered interest on the undisputed part of the gratuity and should have also awarded interest on the withheld amount of gratuitiy for a period atleast from one month after the date of retirement of the petitioner up to the date of actual disbursal. Further, it is also to be noted that Rule 68 of the CCS (Pension) Rules explicitly envisages payment of interest on delayed payment of gratuity. There is no justification whatsoever for delaying the undisputed amount of DCRG and therefore, the undisputed amount of gratuity will carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. for the relevant period, whereas the withheld amount of gratuity will carry interest only at the rate of 6% p.a., for the period from one month after the date of retirement of the petitioner up to the date of actual disbursal. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed: _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 18 :- 1. The undisputed amount of gratuity of Rs.4,26,840/- will carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. for the period from 1.7.2019 (one month after the date of retirement of the petitioner on 31.5.2019) up to 3.1.2020 (date of actual disbursal of said amount to the applicant). 2. The withheld amount of gratuity of Rs.7,22,616/- will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. for the period from 1.7.2019 (one month after the date of retirement of the petitioner on 31.5.2019) up to 13.4.2021. 3. The competent authority among the respondents will immediately pass orders to grant interest to the petitioner on the abovesaid amounts as directed hereinabove without any further delay, at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 4. If, the abovesaid interest amounts are not actually disbursed to the petitioner within the said outer time limit of 2 months, then the undisputed amount of gratuity will carry interest at the enhanced rate of 10% p.a. and the withheld amount of gratuity will carry interest at the enhanced rate of 8% p.a. The directions and orders of the Tribunal as per Ext.P-1 will stand modified as above. _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 19 :- With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (CAT) will stand disposed of. Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE MMG _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 20 :- ## **APPENDIX OF OP(CAT).NO.64/2021** ## **PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2021 IN OA/180/00662/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL OA/180/00662/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA/180/00662/2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA/180/00662/2019** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA/180/00662/2019** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MA 29 OF 2021 IN OA 662 OF 2019 TO ACCEPT DOCUMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CAT/ERNAKULAM BENCH.** **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. F/42/2010-11/VOL.V PART-II DATED 16.08.2019. ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.B/3-40/09 DATED 28.05.2019. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27.06.2019.** _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 21 :- **ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 26.06.2019.** **ANNEXUREA3(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A3.** **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE A4(A) TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A4.** **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.** **ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCLE LEVEL INVESTIGATION REPORT DATED 22.05.2019.** **ANNEXURE R2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL DIRECTORATE LETTER NO. F.NO. 4-92/KER-05/2016-INV. DATED 23.07.2019.** **ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION MEMO NO. C/15/2019 DATED 03.01.2010. ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY OF RULE 58 OF FINANCIAL HANDBOOK VOLUME I. ANNEXURE R5 TRUE COPY OF THE CLAUSE 5 OF APPENDIX 4 OF FINANCIAL HAND BOOK VOLUME I. ANNEXURE R6 TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 85 OF POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK MANUAL. ANNEXURE R7 TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE LEFT UNNOTICED DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE APPLICANT. ANNEXURE R8 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE APPLICANT DATED 30.05.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE ASSISTANT SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES, KANJIRAPPALLY SUB** _OP (CAT) No. 64 of 2021_ - : 22 :- ## **DIVISION.** **ANNEXURE R9 TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 71 OF CCS (PENSION) RULES.** **ANNEXURE R10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT POSTING THE APPLICANT AS HSG I POSTMASTER, KANJIRAPPALLY HO FROM THE PERIOD FROM 31.03.2010 TO 31.05.2010.** **ANNEXURE R11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT POSTING THE APPLICANT AS HSG I POSTMASTER KANJIRAPPALLY HO FROM THE PERIOD FROM 01.06.2010 TO 04.08.2010 AND 09.09.2010 TO 30.09.2010.** **ANNEXURE R12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT POSTING THE APPLICANT AS HSG I POSTMASTER KANJIRAPPALLY HO FROM THE PERIOD FROM O1.10.2010 TO 28.10. 2010 AND 01.11.2010 TO 31.01.2011.** **ANNEXURE R13 TRUE COPY OF THE PARA 4 OF THE APPENDIX 4 OF FINANCIAL HAND BOOK VOL.I.** **ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO. 4- 1/2014-PEN. DATED 25.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION AND IT.**