High Court of KeralaDivision Bench2020-03-11Disposed of with directions; no further orders ...

OP (CAT) Nos. 63 of 2015 (Z); 216 of 2016; 56 of 2017 (Kerala High Court) — Against orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench issued in OA Nos. 546/2012, 189/2013, 1200/2013

Case / Petition Number:OP (CAT) No. 63 of 2015 (Z); OP (CAT) No. 216 of 2016; OP (CAT) No. 56 of 2017

Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: K. Vinod Chandran, J.
P. V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
Judgment Date: 2020-03-11
Court Decision / Holding: The original petitions are disposed of. The court directs the competent authorities to consider the petitioners under Rule 88 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, after assessing the minimum days required for relaxation, and to communicate the orders to the individual petitioners within three months from receipt of certified copies. It is also directed that pensions already granted should not be disturbed, and that the decision should reflect consistency with relaxations granted in similarly situated cases. Costs shall be borne by the parties.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions; no further orders required beyond the Rule 88 relaxation consideration and protection of already granted pensions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K. Raveendran

Respondents

The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Thiruvananthapuram North Division
Chief Postmaster General, Kerala Circle
Union of India represented by Secretary & Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi-110001

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Vishnu (advocate)
• Smt. R. Jagada Bai (for Surendaran C.)
• Martin G. Thottan (for Sreelatha PC)
• M. A. Shafik (for N. K. Mathai)

Counsels for Respondents

• T. V. VinU, CGC

Case Synopsis & Summary

The Kerala High Court, hearing three connected Original Petitions (OPs) under OP (CAT) Nos. 63 of 2015 (Z), 216 of 2016, and 56 of 2017, examines challenges to Central Administrative Tribunal orders granting pension to retired postal employees who lacked the mandatory ten years of qualifying service under the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972. The Department of Posts contends that service rendered as GDS cannot be counted for pension, aligning with a Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera, which held that GDS service should ordinarily not be counted for pension, though the Court allowed discretionary relaxation in hardship cases. The petitioners emphasize hardship and seek relaxation under Rule 88 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 to count certain prior GDS service. The High Court acknowledges the Supreme Court’s directives in Gandiba Behera and the related Registrar & Anr decision, and determines that the respondents (petitioners before the Tribunal) can be considered under Rule 88, subject to minimum-day criteria and consistency with relaxation granted in comparable cases. The judgment analyzes the factual matrices of the three petitions (appointments spanning 1981–2007; retirements up to 2012) and directs the authorities to decide within three months, keeping in view past relaxations, with the original petitions disposed of and costs allocated to the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

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

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

GDS service cannot be counted for pension (law laid down in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera)
Relaxation under Rule 88 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 permissible subject to hardship and judicial directions

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contended that while the Supreme Court has held that GDS service ordinarily cannot be counted for pension, hardship requires relaxation. They urged that Rule 88 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 be invoked to relax the minimum qualifying service in their cases, and pointed to other instances where relaxations were granted, so as to secure pension benefits despite shortfall in qualifying service.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that Union of India v. Gandiba Behera bars counting GDS service for pension and that pension orders already issued should not be disturbed; relief should be strictly limited to those already covered by orders; if any relaxation is to be granted, it should follow the narrow confines of Rule 88 with due regard to months of service and consistency with relaxations given in comparable situations.

Cited Precedents (5)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Union of India v. Gandiba Behera	[(2019) 4 KLT 3033 (SC)]	Positive	Supreme Court held that GDS service cannot be counted for pension; court directions to consider relaxation under Rule 88 for others were followed.
Union of India & Ors. v. Registrar & Anr.	Not specified	Positive	Referenced as supra to justify the relief framework and directives eventually adopted.
Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise	(1975) 4 SCC 714	Mentioned Only	Exhibit reference; not central to the court’s reasoning in the pension relaxation framework.
State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Adiyuth Karnadikar	(1989) SCC (L&S) 417	Mentioned Only	Listed in annexures; used for general reference rather than direct ruling.
Palaniswami's Case	Not specified	Mentioned Only	Madras High Court reference included in exhibits; not a central authority for the decision here.

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) Nos. 63 of 2015 (Z); 216 of 2016; 56 of 2017 (Kerala High Court) — Against orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench issued in OA Nos. 546/2012, 189/2013, 1200/2013 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.63 OF 2015(Z)** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.546/2012 DATED 09.12.2014 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** - **1 THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NORTH DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.** **2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.** **3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY & DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:** ## **K.RAVEENDRAN** **GROUP D, MAIL MOTOR SERVICE, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695023,** **RESIDING AT KAPPIL PANYIL VEEDU,** **RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, RNRA 107, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695011.** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).216/2016(Z) & OP (CAT).56/2017(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 2 ## **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.216 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.189/2013 DATED 07-10-2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI-110 001.** - **2 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL[POSTS], DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.** - **3 CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.** - **4 THE POST MASTER GENERAL NORTHERN REGION, KERALA CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE-673 011.** - **5 SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES THALASSERY DIVISION, THALASSERY-670 102.** **BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 3 **1 SURENDRAN C., AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.RAMAN (LATE), POSTAL ASSISTANT, NETTUR (RETIRED), RESIDING AT CHATHOTH HOUSE, CHIRAKUTHAZHE,KIZHUNNA P.O., THOTTADA-670 007.** - **2 SMT.SREELATHA P.C., CHATHOTH HOUSE, CHIRAKKU THAZHE KIZHUNNA, KANNUR-670 007.** *** [ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.1 OF 2020 DATED 11.03.2020]** **R1 BY ADV. SMT.R.JAGADA BAI R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).63/2015(Z) & OP (CAT).56/2017(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 4 ## **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.56 OF 2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA NO.1200/2013 DATED 05.07.2016 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** ## **PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI- 110 011.** **2 THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.VINU, CGC** ## **RESPONDENT/APPLICANT:** **N.K. MATHAI AGED 61 YEARS, S/O MATHAI, RETIRED POSTMAN, SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD, RESIDING AT "NEZHUVAMKATTIL HOUSE", SASIMALA P.O. PULPALLY, WAYANAD- 673 579.** ## **R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.SHAFIK** **THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11.03.2020, ALONG WITH OP (CAT).63/2015(Z) & OP (CAT).216/2016(Z), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 5 ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K. Vinod Chandran, J.** **The original petitions are 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 appeals of Union of India having been allowed:** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 6 _**“(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 OP(CAT) No.63 of 2015, the appointment as** **an ED/GDS was on 27.01.1981. The applicant was regularly appointed only in the year 2000. The applicant retired on 30.09.2008 with 7 years 11 months and 17 days of service.** **3. In OP(CAT) No.216 of 2016, the appointment** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 7 **as ED/GDS was on 28.03.1996. The applicant was appointed as a Leave Reserve Postman on 28.01.2004 and was appointed regularly on 24.12.2007 as Postal Assistant. He retired on 31.03.2012. He has 8 years 2 months and 2 days of service. The learned Counsel points out that it was categorically stated in the Reply Affidavit that the applicant's promotion could be pre-dated and in such circumstances, he would have 9 years and 12 days of service, counting the same from 20.03.2003.** **4. In OP(CAT) No.56 of 2017, the appointment as ED/GDS was on 18.01.1979. The date of regular appointment was on 19.03.2003 and he retired on 31.10.2012. He has 9 years and 7 months qualifying service and if relaxation of two months is granted, he would have qualified for pension.** **5. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondents herein who are the applicants before the Tribunal could be considered under Rule 88 of the Rules** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 8 **of 1972. We also direct the concerned authority to consider the same, especially looking at the minimum days, that would be required for the purpose of granting relaxation. It is to be noticed that the respondent/applicant in OP(CAT) No.56 of 2017 had served for 24 years as an ED/GDS and the respondent/ applicant in OP(CAT) No.63 of 2015 for 9 years and the applicant in OP(CAT) No.216 of 2016 for a period of 7 years. The appropriate authority shall consider the issue within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy from the Office of the ASG/CGSC and communicate the respective order to the individual applicants.** **6. In fact it is also submitted that relaxation was granted to similarly situated persons and even with respect to persons, who have deficiency of more than one year. In such circumstances, we also direct that while considering the issue under Rule 88 the authority shall also keep in mind the relaxation granted in other cases.** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 9 ## **The original petitions are disposed of. Parties** **shall suffer their respective costs.** ## **Sd/-** **K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.** **Sd/-** **P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE.** **sp/12/03/2020** **//True Copy//** **P.A. To Judge** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 10 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 63/2015** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.BIE/RETIREMENT DATED 23/09/2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** **ANNEXURE P2 TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.B4/RECTT/2000 DATED 17/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.889/09 DATED 31/5/2011.** - **ANNEXURE P2 B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28/9/2011 IN OA 145/2010.** - **ANNEXURE P2 C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2012 IN OA NO.204/2012.** - **ANNEXURE P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 1/5/2011 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 1/2/2012 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT** - **ANNEXURE P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/4/2002 IN OA 1264/2001 OF THE HONOURABLE CAT, MADRAS BENCH.** - **ANNEXURE P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17/10/2008 IN SLP CC 13829/2008 IN WPC NO.45465/2002 OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA** **ANNEXURE P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.99-3/08-PEN DATED 9/10/2009 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2012 OA NO.204/2012 ANNEXURE R4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4/10/2007 IN WPC NO.45465/2002 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS** **ANNEXURE A8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.674/2012 OF HONOURABLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 11 ## **ANNEXURE A9** **TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20/1/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.** **EXHIBIT P1 P1:TRUE COPY OF OA.NO.546/2012 DATED 22.04.2012 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH** **EXHIBIT P2 P2:TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 05.11.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS** **EXHIBIT P3 P3:TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 05.12.2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 P4:TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20.01.2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS EXHIBIT P5 P5:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA.NO.546/2012 DATED OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH** **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/11/2015 IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S).1703517036/2013 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.** **EXHIBIT R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/08/2019 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 15/03/2019 OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN C.A.NO.3150/2019. EXHIBIT R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/03/2019 IN WPC.NO.5305 OF 2018 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS.** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 12 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 216/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE A12 COPY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THALASSERY DIVISION, THALASSERY MEMO NO.C3/2/2011-12 DATED 25-09-2012.** **ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THALASSERY DIVISION (RESPONDENT NO.4) MEMO NO.B2/4-1/2002 DATED 17.07.2002. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THALASSERY DIVISION (RESPONDENT NO.4) MEMO NO.B2/4-1/2002 DATED 25.02.2001. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THALASSERY DIVISION (RESPONDENT NO.4) MEMO NO.B2/4-1/2002 DATED 14.01.2004. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THALASSERY DIVISION (RESPONDENT NO.4) MEMO.NO.B2/1/1999 DATED 28.01.2004. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT DATED 28.01.2004 ASSUMING THE CHARGE OF LEAVE RESERVE POST MAN BY THE APPLICANT IN THALASSERY DIVISION. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THALASSERY DIVISION (RESPONDENT No.4) MEMO.B 1/3/2007 DATED 24.12.2007. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE REPORT OF THE APPLICANT ASSUMING AS LEAVE RESERVE POSTAL ASSISTANT TIRUVANGAD ON 29.12.2007.** **ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, THALASSERY DIVISION (RESPONDENT NO.4) MEMO NO.BS-92 DATED 18.01.2012.** **ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.08.2012 SENT BY THE APPLICANT TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2.** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 13 |**ANNEXURE A10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C3/2/2011-12**| |---|---| ||**DATED 18-09-2012 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF**| ||**POST** **OFFICES,** **THALASSERY** **DIVISION**| ||**(RESPONDENT NO.4).**| |**ANNEXURE A11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED**| ||**BY THE APPLICANT TO THE SUPERINTENDENT OF**| ||**POST** **OFFICES,** **THALASSERY** **DIVISION**| ||**(RESPONDENT NO.40 ON 20.09.2012.**| |**ANNEXURE A13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE**| ||**DIRECTOR GENERAL (POSTS) NEW DELHI**| ||**RESPONDENT** **NO.2** **ISSUED** **UNDER**| ||**NO.I.R.NO.1850/2012/PENSION** **DATED**| ||**31.10.2012.**| |**ANNEXURE A14**|**A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE**| ||**TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.618/2012, WHICH HEARD**| ||**TOGETHER AND DECIDED ON 30.10.2012.**| |**ANNEXURE A15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CALENDAR OF DEPARTMENTAL**| ||**EXAMINATION TO BE HELD IN 2005 PUBLISHED**| ||**VIDE THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA**| ||**GIRDLE, TRIVANDRUM (RESPONDENT NO.3) VIDE**| ||**NOTIFICATION** **NO.RECTT/26-3/2005** **DATED**| ||**04.02.2005.**| |**ANNEXURE A16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE CALENDAR OF DEPARTMENTAL**| ||**EXAMINATION TO BE HELD IN 2006 PUBLISHED**| ||**VIDE THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERALK, KERALA**| ||**CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM (RESPONDENT NO.3) VIDE**| ||**NORIFICATION** **NO.RECTT/26-3/2005** **DATED**| ||**29.12.2005.**| |**ANNEXURE A17**|**A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE APX**| ||**COURT IN STATE OF MAHARASTRA Vs JAGANNATH**| ||**ADIYUTH KARNADIKAR REPORTED IN 1989 SCC**| ||**(L&S) 417.**| |**ANNEXURE R1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 27.09.2012 OF THE**| ||**CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH IN OA NO.81/2012**| |**ANNEXURE A18**|**COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OA**| ||**NO.199/2012 DATED 18.03.2013.**| |**ANNEXURE A19**|**COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN OA**| ||**NO.724/2012 DECIDED ON 28.06.2013.**| OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 14 |**ANNEXURE A20**|**COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT**| |---|---| ||**IN AMRIT LAL BERRY Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL**| ||**EXCISE (1975) 4SCCC 714.**| |**ANNEXURE MA1**|**COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED**| ||**16.08.2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS.**| |**ANNEXURE MA2**|**COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT**| ||**OF MADRAS IN WP.NO.18988/2013 DATED**| ||**28.11.2013.**| |**ANNEXURE MA3**|**COPY OF THE ORDER NO.99-3/08-PEN DATED**| ||**09.10.2009 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF**| ||**POSTS IMPLEMENTING THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE**| ||**HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN PALANISWAMI'S CASE.**| |**ANNEXURE R3**|**TRUE COPY OF RULE 49 OF CCS (PENSION) RULES**| ||**1972.**| |**ANNEXURE A21**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH**| ||**COURT OF MADRAS DATED 20.12.2012 IN WP**| ||**NO.20926/2011.**| |**ANNEXURE A22**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH**| ||**COURT OF MADRAS IN WP NO.18988/2013 DATED**| ||**28.11.2013.**| |**ANNEXURE A23**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE**| ||**SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, NAMAKKAL**| ||**DIVISION,** **NAMAKKAL** **673** **001** **ORDER**| ||**NO.C16/7/2010-2011 DATED 14.03.2014.**| |**EXHIBIT P1 :**|**TRUE COPY OF OA NO.189/2013 DATED 4-3-2013**| ||**FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CENTRAL**| ||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH.**| |**EXHIBIT P2 :**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 6-8-**| ||**2013 IN OA NO. 189/2013 FILE BY THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**EXHIBIT P3 :**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 16-11-2013**| ||**FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P4 :**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 5-**| ||**12-2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS IN**| ||**RESPONSE TO THE REJOINDER.**| OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 15 **EXHIBIT P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED 5-12-2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 20-1-2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER.** **EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE MA FOR AMENDMENT DATED 1611-2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED 243-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.** **EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 13-6-2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 6-8-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.** **EXHIBIT P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED 25-8-2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT DATED 30-9-2015 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.189/2013 DATED 7-10-2015 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.** OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 16 ## **APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 56/2017** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**ANNEXURE A1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.DA/SASIMALA DATED**| |---|---| ||**18.1.1979 ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POSTS,**| ||**KALPETTA SUB DIVISION.**| |**ANNEXURE A2**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO.B2/SL/DLG DATED**| ||**19.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE SR.SUPERINTENDENT**| ||**OF POST OFFICES, CALICUTG.**| |**ANNEXURE A3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.10.2007**| ||**IN WP NO.45465/2002 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH**| ||**COURT OF MADRAS.**| |**ANNEXURE A4**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.8.2012 OF**| ||**THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN O.A.NO.666/2010**| ||**AND CONNECTED CASES.**| |**ANNEXURE A5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED**| ||**24.6.2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE A6**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RRI/6-**| ||**1895/10/2013 DATED 29.10.2013 ISSUED ON**| ||**BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.**| |**ANNEXURE R1**|**TRUE COPY OF RO LETTER NO.RECTT/3-2/97**| ||**DATED 19.8.1997.**| |**ANNEXURE R2**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.10.1997.**| |**ANNEXURE R3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE VACANCY POSITION DURING**| ||**THE YEAR 1998.**| |**ANNEXURE R4**|**TRUE COPY OF VACANCY POSITION DURING THE**| ||**YEAR 1999.**| |**ANNEXURE R5**|**TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO.B3/43/2002 DATED**| ||**21.2.2003.**| |**ANNEXURE R6**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN OA NO.1191/2012 DATED**| ||**18.3.2014.**| |**ANNEXURE R7**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.RECTT/3-2/2000 DATED**| ||**1.3.2000.**| OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 17 |**ANNEXURE R8**|**TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.RECTT/3-2/2001 DATED**| |---|---| ||**23.2.2001.**| |**ANNEXURE R9**|**TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE POSTAL**| ||**SERVICE BOARD VIDE DIRECTORATE LETTER**| ||**NO.19-12/2009-GDS DATED 25.10.2013.**| |**ANNEXURE A-1A**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.19-12/2009-GDS**| ||**DATED 25.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE DDG (EST) OF**| ||**THE IST RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P1**|**TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.1200 OF 2013 DATED**| ||**7.12.2013, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT IN OA**| ||**NO.1200/2013 DATED NIL MARCH, 2014 FILED BY**| ||**THE PETITIONERS.**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 16.4.2014,**| ||**FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REPLY STATEMENT**| ||**FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P5**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MA FOR AMENDMENT DATED**| ||**5.7.2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO MISCELLANEOUS**| ||**APPLICATION TO AMEND OA FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT**| ||**DATED 27.7.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINDER DATED**| ||**16.9.2015, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD ADDL. REPLY**| ||**STATEMENT DATED 30.3.2016, FILED BY THE**| ||**PETITIONERS.**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.7.2016 IN OA**| ||**NO.1200 OF 2013 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL**| ||**ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.**| OP (CAT).No.63 OF 2015(Z) etc. 18 |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS**| |---|---| ||**NOTIFICATION** **NO.S.R.O.** **609,** **DATED**| ||**28.2.1957.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.11.2015 IN**| ||**SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO (S) 17035-**| ||**17036/2013 ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME**| ||**COURT OF INDIA.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE**| ||**COURT IN O.P.(CAT) NO.190/2016 AND**| ||**CONNECTED CASES.**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.99-7/2017-**| ||**PENSION DATED 1.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY**| ||**GENERAL (ESTT.), DEPARTMENT OF POSTS**| ||**(PENSIONS), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA.**| |**RESPONDENT'S/S**|**EXHIBITS:**| |**EXHIBIT R1 A**|**PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED**| ||**3.6.2019 IN O.P.(CAT) NO.137/2019 OF THE**| ||**HIGH COURT OF KERALA.**|