High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-03-11Dismissed

OP (CAT) No.92 of 2015 (Z)

Case / Petition Number:OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran
P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2020-03-11
Court Decision / Holding: The original petition is dismissed. Parties shall suffer their respective costs.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Postal Circle, Thiruvananthapuram-33
Union of India represented by Director General of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-1

Respondents

M. Ravindran Nair (Retd Mailman, HRO, Thiruvananthapuram)
Kumary Kusumam G.S., W/o Late M. Ravindran Nair, Gopaln, Ullas Nagar, Elippodu, Thirumala, Thiruvananthapuram-695 006

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri. T.V. Vinu, CGC

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri. S. Vishnu

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Kerala High Court original petition (OP (CAT) No.92 of 2015 (Z)) challenges a Central Administrative Tribunal order that granted pension to respondents Ravindran Nair and Kumary Kusumam, who did not have the qualifying ten years of service under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court anchors its approach on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera, which held that GDS service cannot be reckoned for pension, but also directs limited relief in hardship cases and possible relaxation of the minimum qualifying service under Rule 88 of the CCS Pension Rules. The DG Posts had declined pension under Rule 88, while the Tribunal had noted the applicant’s officiating service from 1991–1994 and that endorsements in the service book (later inserted) and a period of 116 days of officiating service could be counted, with half of that (58 days) counted as reckonable. The Court recognises that the applicant’s total service amounts to 9 years 7 months 14 days, which with half of the contingent period yields 9 years 9 months 12 days—proximity to, but short of, the ten-year threshold—yet the court construes this under the Supreme Court’s relaxations. Ultimately, applying the Supreme Court directions and the facts, the petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioners, and relief is confined to what the Supreme Court allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972Rule 88, CCS Pension Rules, 1972Rule 49, CCS Pension Rules, 1972

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Half of the period of service of a casual labourer with temporary status can be reckoned for pension.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners challenge the Tribunal’s pension grant, arguing that GDS service cannot be counted for pension under CCS Pension Rules. They rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Gandiba Behera to insist that eligibility for pension requires ten years of qualifying service, with the directive that for those already granted pensions there should be no disturbance and for others a potential relaxation under Rule 88. They emphasize that the service history includes officiating periods and tampered service book entries, which require scrutiny and strict application of rules, not circumvention by counting non-qualifying service.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that their long officiating service plus contigent period resulted in enough reckonable service to meet minimum pension under Rule 49, particularly under the Supreme Court’s relaxation directions for hardship cases. They highlight that the Tribunal found 116 days of officiating service, of which 58 days are reckonable, giving a total of about 9 years 9 months 12 days of service—nearing the threshold. They rely on the Supreme Court’s directions to relax minimum qualifying service in the interests of justice for those who served as GDS for long periods.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India v. Gandiba Behera	[(2019) 4 KLT 3033 (SC)]	Positive	The Supreme Court held that GDS service cannot be counted for pension; the Kerala High Court cites this as controlling precedent and applies the principle, while recognizing limited relief under the Court's directions.
Union of India & Ors. v. Registrar & Anr. [supra]	[supra]	Mentioned Only	Cited as the direction relied upon by the Supreme Court to adopt a particular approach; the present judgment does not elaborate its holdings but uses it as a guiding precedent.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against OP (CAT) No.92 of 2015 (Z) and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941** **OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z)** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.689 OF 2013 DATED 25.09.2014 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA POSTAL CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33 2 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POST, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-1 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT/ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT:** **1 M.RAVINDRAN NAIR (RETD MAILMAN, HRO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM), GOPALAM, ULLAS NAGAR, ELIPPODU, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 006. * 2 KUMARY KUSUMAM G.S. W/O.LATE M. RAVINDRAN NAIR GOPALAM, ULLAS NAGR, ELIPPODU, THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 006.** *** [ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.03.2020 IN I.A. NO.1 OF 2020] R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 2 ## **JUDGMENT** **K. Vinod Chandran, J.** **The original petition is against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [for brevity, 'the Tribunal'], granting pension to the applicants, who did not have the qualifying service of ten years as is provided under the Central Civil Service [Pension Rules], 1972 [for brevity, 'the Rules of 1972']. The Postal Department is before us challenging the said orders. Before we consider the individual facts, we have to notice that the issue stands covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme** **Court in** _**Union of India v. Gandiba Behera [(2019) 4 KLT 3033 (SC)]**_ **. The Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that the service as a GDS cannot be reckoned for the purpose of pension. However, considering the hardship caused to the persons, who continued as GDS for longtime, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued the following directions despite the** OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 3 ## **appeals of Union of India having been allowed:** _**“(i) In the event the Central Government or the postal department has already issued any order for pension to any of the respondents, then such pension should not be disturbed. In issuing this direction, we are following the course which was directed to be adopted by this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Registrar & Anr. [supra].**_ _**(ii) In respect of the other respondents, who have not been issued any order for pension, the concerned ministry may consider as to whether the minimum qualifying service Rule can be relaxed in their cases in terms of Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules.”**_ **We have to necessarily confine the relief to what has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court subject only to there being any difference on the facts.** **2. In this original petition, the Director General of Posts had considered the application and rejected it under Rule 88 of the Rules of 1972. The learned Counsel points out that there is a difference in facts insofar as the applicant having been** OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 4 **appointed as an officiating Postman for about 5 months and then the Service Book tampered insofar as showing it as engagement on daily wages. We read the order of the Tribunal, which has looked into the specific dates in which the applicant had officiated as Mailman. The Tribunal found that the endorsements made in the Service Book on 12.06.1999 and 16.08.1999 are subsequent insertions long after the period of service. It was also noticed that the applicant had continuous officiating service at least from 26.05.1994 to 19.09.1994.** **3. We extract here under the endorsements** **made on 16.08.1999 and 12.06.1999; in that order:** _**I. “Regularisation of Pay**_ _**DDPA TVM vide their letter No.176/PAII/RMS TV/Pay fixation dated 02.08.99 has ordered that ED agent is not a departmental employee and is to be treated at par with casual labourer with temp status for the purpose of fixation of initial pay at the minimum of the Gr “D” post on regular appointment. Further it has**_ OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 5 _**been ordered in the case of this official to fix his pay to minimum in the Gr D post from 20.09.9 and regularise the pay accordingly. Hence, the pay of the official is fixed @ Rs.750 on 20.09.94 with DNI on 01.09.1995. Subsequent pay is regularised as follows:**_ _**1.1.96 @Rs.2550 (Revised pay under CCS RP Rules 97)**_ _**1.9.96 @Rs.2605 1.9.97 @Rs2660 1.9.98 @Rs.2720**_ _**(DDPA letter is pasted in the SB)”**_ _**II. “the adhoc posting in r/o the official to officials as MM for the above periods is revised as substitute arrangement in place of short term vacancies of MM vide HRD TVM memo No.C2/Posting dated 8.4.99.”**_ ## **4. The endorsement on 16.08.1999 speaks of** **fixation of initial pay at the minimum of Gr D posts, treating the applicant as casual labourer with temporary status. It is trite that a casual labourer with temporary status is entitled to reckon half of the period of service for the purpose of pension. The learned CGC submits that only a continuous service can be reckoned. In fact even Government of India's Decision No.2 under Rule 14 specifically speak of** OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 6 **counting half of the service paid from contingencies, if the type of work requires services of whole-time workers and is paid on monthly rates or daily rates computed or paid on monthly basis and on being found fit, brought on to regular establishment.** **5. It is in this context that we have to look** **at the service of the applicant. We see the officiating service in various dates from 1991 to 1994. The last of which is from 27.05.1994 to 19.09.1994. On the next day of expiry of which, ie 20.09.1994, the applicant was appointed to the regular establishment. The petitioner has hence such casual service with a temporary status or contingency service paid from regular establishment, of 116 days. The half of it comes to 58 days. The petitioner has 9 years 7 months and 14 days service and if 58 days are added, he will have 9 years 9 months and 12 days service, which qualifies him for minimum pension under Rule 49 of the Rules 1972.** OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 7 **The original petition is dismissed. Parties** **shall suffer their respective costs.** ## **Sd/-** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** **Sd/-** **P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** **sp/12/10/2020** **//True Copy//** **P.A. To Judge** OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 8 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 92/2015** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-08-2012 IN OA NO.103/2012** - **ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.99-38/2011-PEN DATED 03-01-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND APPLICANT** - **ANNEXUREA1 COPY OF MEMO NO.ED RECTT/82/HRO TVM DATED 30-12-1982** - **ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.BII/II-3/96 DATED 1209-1996** - **ANNEXUREA3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.155/1995** - **ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 27-11-2000 IN OP NO. 17116/2000 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT** - **ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OANO.389/2004 OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH** - **ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 20-12-2006 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA** **ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-4-2002 IN OA NO.1264 OF 2001 ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-10-2009 IN SLP CC NO.13029 OF 2008 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA** **ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9-10-2009 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 3-5-2010 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 13-102010** OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 9 - **ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18-05-2011 IN OA NO. 371 OF 2011** - **ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17-08-2012 IN OA NO. 103/2012 OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH** - **ANNEXURE 16 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA NO.674/2014 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** - **ANNEXURE R1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 31-05-2011 IN OA NO.889 OF 2009** - **ANNEXURE R2 TRUE EXTRACT OF PARA 10 IN SECTION VII UNDER THE HEAD "PROMOTION PROSPECTS" OF THE SWAMY'S COMPILATION OF GDS STAFF SERVICE AND EMPLOYMENT RULES** - **ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28-09-2011 IN OA 145/2010 OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH** - **ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 4-10-2007 IN WP NO.45465 OF 2002 OF THE HON'BEL HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS** - **EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.689/2013 DATED 3006-2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED IN OA NO.689 OF 2013 DATED 25-10-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER STATEMENT DATED 02-03-2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.689/2013 DATED 25-09-2014 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH** OP (CAT).No.92 OF 2015(Z) 10