karsanbhai m solanki vs POSTS

:: 1 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022





CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
Original Application No. 35/2022 & 37/2022

th
Dated this the 15 day of October, 2026.

Reserved On: 17.09.2026
Pronounced On: 15.10.2026



CORAM:
Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)

1. Shri Nirmalsinh Amarsang Parmar
DOB: 1-1-1961 Aged 61 years
Son of Shri amarsang Jambha Parmar
Postman (Rtd.),
SUrendranagar Head Post-Office,
Surendranagar – 363 001.
Residing At Munjpar
Via Joravarnagar, Dist. Surendranagar – 363 020.

… Applicants

(By Advocate Mr. Joy Mathew)

V/s.

The Union of India & Others
Notice to be served through
1) Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Communication & I.T.
Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Chief Postmaster General,
Gujarat Circle, Khanpur, Ahmedabad – 380 001.

3. Postmaster General,
Saurashtra and Kachchh Region, Rajkot – 360 001.

4. Supdt. of Post-Offices,
Surendranagar Division, Surendranagar – 363 001.

… Respondents

(By Advocate Ms. R R Patel)
P ANUKUMA

:: 2 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022






OA No. 37/2022

1. Shri Karsanbhai Mohanbhai Solanki
DOB: 6-8-1961 Aged 61 years
Son of Shri Mohanbhai Zaverbhai Solanki
Postman (Rtd.),
Surendranagar Head Post-Office,
Surendranagar – 363 001.
Residing At Ratanpur,
Naranpara Sheri No. 5
Via Joravarnagar, Dist.
Surendranagar – 363 020.

… Applicants

(By Advocate Mr. Joy Mathew)

V/s.


The Union of India & Others
Notice to be served through

1) Secretary to the Govt. of India
Ministry of Communication & I.T.
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. Chief Postmaster General,
Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad – 380 001.

3. Postmaster General,
Saurashtra and Kachchh Region,
Rajkot – 360 001.

4. Supdt. of Post-Offices,
Surendranagar Division,
Surendranagar – 363 001.

… Respondents

(By Advocate Ms. R R Patel)


P ANUKUMA

:: 3 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022





ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
1. The question of facts & law as well the prayer sought by the
applicants are common in nature in both the OAs, therefore, the
present OAs are being disposed of together with the consent of
learned counsel for the parties. For the sake of convenience, OA No.
35/2022 has been taken up as lead case.
1.1 Applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:
“i) May be pleased to admit and allow present original
application.
ii) May be pleased to direct the respondents to extend
coverage of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 to the applicant.
iii) May be pleased to direct the respondents to grant monthly
pension to the applicant from June 2021 onwards and effect
payment of arrears arising therefrom.
iv) May be pleased to direct the respondents to draw and
disburse all the retiral benefits to the applicant as admissible
under CCS (Pension) Rules 1972.
And
v) May be pleased to grant such other and further relief as
deemed appropriate.
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are as under: -
2.1 The applicant was initially engaged as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) in
the Surendranagar Postal Division on 06.02.1984. He participated in
the departmental competitive examination conducted for recruitment
to the cadre of Postman/Village Postman/Mail Guard on 08.06.2003.
2.2 The applicant was declared successful and included among the
approved candidates for appointment to the Postman cadre vide
memorandum dated 18.11.2003.
2.3 The said examination was conducted for vacancies pertaining to the
year 2003 and he had successfully completed the selection process
before the introduction of the New Pension Scheme with effect from
P ANUKUMA

:: 4 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




01.01.2004. He submits that the subsequent delay in issuing his
appointment order should not alter his entitlement to pensionary
benefits under the Old Pension Scheme.
2.4 An order dated 28.07.2006 was issued directing the successful
candidates, including the applicant, to undergo ten days of training
from 10.08.2006 to 19.08.2006. The candidates were thereafter
required to await their allotment and appointment orders.
Subsequently, vide memorandum dated 19.09.2006, the applicant was
allotted to the concerned unit in the Postman cadre.
2.5 In the meantime, the New Pension Scheme had been introduced for
Central Government employees appointed on or after 01.01.2004,
subject to the applicable provisions. Consequently, the applicant was
covered under the New Pension Scheme. The Department of Pension
and Pensioners’ Welfare, Government of India, issued an Office
Memorandum dated 17.02.2020 bearing No. 57/04/2019-P&PW(B),
providing a one-time option for coverage under the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972, to specified categories of Central Government employees
whose selection for appointment had been finalised before 01.01.2004
but who joined Government service on or after that date.
2.6 Relying upon the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the applicant
submitted a representation dated 28.10.2020 requesting that he be
permitted to exercise the option for coverage under the Old Pension
Scheme. He subsequently submitted another representation dated
22.04.2021.
2.7 The Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare issued a further
Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2021 extending the time limit for
exercising the option up to 31.05.2021 and for consideration of the
representation by the appointing authority up to 30.09.2021.
2.8 The respondents examined the applicant’s request and vide impugned
order dated 14.07.2021, rejected his claim. The rejection was based
primarily on the view that the available official records did not
establish that the applicant had been selected against a vacancy arising
before 01.01.2004.
P ANUKUMA

:: 5 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




2.9 The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 23.07.2021
before the Postmaster General, Saurashtra and Kachchh Region,
Rajkot, challenging the rejection. The respondents state in their reply
that the matter had been forwarded to the higher authority and that a
decision on the representation was awaited.
3. Submissions of learned counsel for the applicant
3.1 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
participated in the departmental competitive examination conducted
on 08.06.2003 and was declared successful on 18.11.2003. His
selection was thus finalised before the introduction of the New
Pension Scheme on 01.01.2004. Despite his selection in November
2003, the respondents issued the training order only on 28.07.2006
and the allotment order on 19.09.2006. Learned counsel contends that
the applicant cannot be made to suffer a recurring financial
disadvantage in his retirement merely because the department took an
unduly long time to complete the appointment process.
3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the applicant had been serving in
the postal establishment as a GDS since 1984 and that his subsequent
appointment to the Postman cadre was through a departmental
competitive examination. It is contended that the applicant should not
be treated as a person whose selection process commenced only after
the introduction of the New Pension Scheme. Learned counsel for the
applicant by referring to the Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020,
submits that the Government itself recognised that certain employees
whose selection had been finalised before 01.01.2004 but who joined
service subsequently could be considered for coverage under the Old
Pension Scheme.
3.3 Learned counsel also relies upon the Office Memorandum dated
31.03.2021, by which the time limits for exercising the option and
deciding representations were extended. It is submitted that the
applicant submitted his representation on 28.10.2020, well within the
extended period, and was therefore entitled to a proper consideration of
his claim under the prescribed procedure.
P ANUKUMA

:: 6 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




3.4 In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Parmanand Yadav and
Others v. Union of India and Others , W.P. (C) No. 3834/2013 ,
decided on 12.02.2015, as well as the judgment in W.P. (C) No.
2810/2016, decided on 27.03.2017. It is submitted that the aforesaid
judgments recognise the principle that employees should not be
deprived of the Old Pension Scheme merely because appointment
letters were issued after the introduction of the New Pension Scheme.
3.5 Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the respondents have
failed to distinguish the applicant’s case on any legally sustainable
basis. The rejection of the representation without adequately
considering the circumstances leading to the delay in appointment is
contrary to the principles of fairness and equality embodied in Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3.6 Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order does not
satisfactorily explain why the applicant’s selection in November 2003
was insufficient for the purpose of determining pension coverage. It is
contended that the decision has been taken without proper application
of mind and deserves to be set aside and the respondents be directed to
extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the applicant, together
with all consequential pensionary benefits admissible in law.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the respondents
4.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents denied the claim of the
and submitted that applicant is not entitled to coverage under the Old
Pension Scheme because he joined the Postman cadre only on
01.10.2006.
4.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the New
Pension Scheme was introduced with effect from 01.01.2004 and that
Central Government employees appointed on or after the prescribed
cut-off date are ordinarily governed by the New Pension Scheme,
subject to the applicable exceptions and subsequent Government
instructions.
P ANUKUMA

:: 7 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




4.3 It is contended that the applicant’s inclusion in the list of approved
candidates on 18.11.2003 does not establish that he was selected
against a vacancy arising on or before 31.12.2003. The date on which
a candidate is declared successful and the date or year of the vacancy
against which the candidate is appointed are distinct matters.
4.4 Learned counsel for the respondents also draws attention to the
training order dated 28.07.2006 and the allotment memorandum dated
19.09.2006. It is submitted that the applicant was allotted against a
clear vacancy available in the concerned unit in 2006 and joined the
Postman cadre with effect from 01.10.2006.
4.5 Learned counsel further submits that, upon receipt of the applicant’s
representation dated 28.10.2020, the relevant service records and
examination file were examined. However, the records available with
the department did not establish that the examination conducted in
2003 related to vacancies arising before 01.01.2004. A letter dated
22.09.2006 addressed to the Regional Office, Rajkot, referred to the
non-availability of vacancies in the Postman cadre and the consequent
inability to accommodate the approved candidates at the relevant time.
The respondents rely upon this correspondence to explain why the
appointment and allotment process was completed only in 2006.
4.6 In this regard, learned counsel places reliance on paragraph 7(ii) of the
Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020. The said provision excludes
the benefit of switching over from the New Pension Scheme to the
Old Pension Scheme in cases where the name of a candidate was
included in a panel prepared before 01.01.2004 for vacancies arising
both before and after that date, but the candidate was actually
appointed after 31.12.2003 against a vacancy arising on or after
01.01.2004. It is submitted that the applicant’s case falls within the
aforesaid exclusion because the available record does not establish
that his appointment was against a pre-01.01.2004 vacancy.
Accordingly, the respondents contend that the applicant cannot claim
coverage under the Old Pension Scheme merely on the basis of the
date of declaration of the examination result.
P ANUKUMA

:: 8 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




4.7 Learned counsel further submits that the judgments relied upon by the
applicant arose in different factual circumstances and cannot be
applied without examining the nature of the selection, the relevant
vacancies and the terms of the applicable Government instructions.
4.8 The respondents also contend that the applicant had submitted a
representation dated 23.07.2021 before the Postmaster General,
Saurashtra and Kachchh Region, Rajkot, against the order dated
14.07.2021. The said representation was pending for consideration
when the present OA was filed and the applicant had approached the
Tribunal without awaiting the decision of the higher authority. It is
therefore submitted that the impugned order was passed after
examination of the available records and in accordance with the
applicable pension instructions. Hence, the OA deserved to be
dismissed due to devoid of merits.
5. Applicant has also filed rejoinder and reiterated the submissions made
in the OA.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. The question that arises for consideration in the present OA is whether
the applicant, who was declared successful in the departmental
competitive examination conducted on 08.06.2003 and whose name
was included in the list of approved candidates vide memorandum
dated 18.11.2003, can be denied the benefit of coverage under the
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, merely because his
appointment to the Postman cadre was issued after 01.01.2004.
7.1 It is an admitted position that the applicant was initially engaged as a
Gramin Dak Sevak on 06.02.1984 and subsequently participated in the
departmental competitive examination conducted on 08.06.2003 for
recruitment to the Postman cadre. His name was included in the
approved list of candidates on 18.11.2003. However, the training
order was issued only on 28.07.2006, followed by the allotment
memorandum dated 19.09.2006, and the applicant joined the Postman
P ANUKUMA

:: 9 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




cadre with effect from 01.10.2006. Consequently, the applicant was
brought under the New Pension Scheme.
7.2 The applicant has contended that the selection process had been
completed before the introduction of the New Pension Scheme with
effect from 01.01.2004 and that the delay in issuing the appointment
order was attributable to the administrative process of the respondents.
On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the inclusion
of the applicant’s name in the approved list before 01.01.2004 does
not establish that he was appointed against a vacancy arising before
the said date. They have further relied upon paragraph 7(ii) of the
Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020 to contend that the applicant is
not entitled to the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme.
7.3 We find that the Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020 was issued to
provide a one-time option to specified categories of Central
Government employees whose selection for appointment had been
finalised before 01.01.2004 but who joined service on or after that
date, subject to the conditions prescribed therein. The subsequent
Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2021 extended the prescribed time
limits for exercising the option and consideration of the
representations.
7.4 The object of the aforesaid instructions is to provide relief to eligible
employees whose selection had been finalised before the introduction
of the New Pension Scheme but whose appointment was completed
subsequently. The entitlement of an employee, however, has to be
determined in accordance with the specific conditions contained in the
applicable Office Memorandum. Therefore, neither the date of
declaration of the result nor the date of joining can, in isolation, be
treated as conclusive of the applicant’s entitlement.
7.5 In the present case, the applicant’s selection was finalised 18.11.2003,
on the basis of Memo No. B2/2/2003 dated 18.11.2023 at
Surendranagar which specifically mention that “The following GDS
Employees are hereby declared successful and selected as approved
candidates for appointment in Postman cadre against unfilled
P ANUKUMA

:: 10 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




vacancies of Departmental Quota of the Division on the basis of merit
Allotment orders of these APCs will be issued later on after
completion of prescribed training” whereas the appointment was
made in October 2006. The respondents have relied upon the non-
availability of vacancies at the relevant time and the subsequent
allotment of the applicant against a vacancy available in 2006.
However, the mere fact that the appointment order was issued in 2006
does not, sufficiently explain the precise nature and year of the
vacancy against which the applicant was ultimately appointed. The
relevant vacancy position, the approved panel and the circumstances
in which the applicant was accommodated require examination
together in the light of the applicable Government instructions.
7.6 We are of the view that, while considering the applicant’s
representation, the respondents were required to examine the relevant
recruitment records and determine whether the applicant's case fell
within the categories eligible for the one-time option under the Office
Memorandum dated 17.02.2020. Such determination could not
properly be made merely by referring to the date of joining or by
stating that the available records did not establish the existence of a
pre-01.01.2004 vacancy, without a reasoned examination of the
relevant recruitment and vacancy records.
7.7 The applicant has specifically relied upon the memorandum dated
18.11.2003, the training order dated 28.07.2006 and the allotment
memorandum dated 19.09.2006. These documents are relevant to the
determination of his claim. The respondents were, therefore, required
to examine the selection process, the vacancy position and the
applicable provisions of the Office Memorandum together and record
clear findings on the applicant’s eligibility. The impugned rejection
dated 14.07.2021 does not satisfactorily resolve the issue concerning
the applicability of the aforesaid instructions to the applicant’s case.
7.8 We also take note of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel
for the applicant, including Parmanand Yadav and Others v. Union
of India and Others , W.P. (C) No. 3834/2013, decided on
P ANUKUMA

:: 11 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




12.02.2015, and the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 2810/2016, decided on
27.03.2017. The principles laid down in the said decisions are
required to be considered in the context of the facts of the present case
and the subsequent Government instructions governing the one-time
option. The respondents cannot disregard the applicant’s claim
without examining the applicability of the relevant judicial precedents
and the governing pension instructions.
7.9 As regards the contention of the respondents that the applicant’s
representation dated 23.07.2021 was pending before the higher
authority when the present O.A. was filed, we find that the said
circumstance does not justify rejection of the applicant’s claim on
merits. The respondents had already passed the order dated
14.07.2021 rejecting his request for coverage under the Old Pension
Scheme. The respondents have neither passed speaking order on the
applicant’s claim on 14.07.2021, nor disposed of his representation
dated 28.10.2020. No useful purpose will be served by remanding the
matter back to Appellate Authority in view of the fact the applicant
has already retired and doing so will further delay the matter. The
applicant was, therefore, entitled to challenge the said decision before
this Tribunal in accordance with law.
7.10 An employee whose selection was finalised before the introduction of
the New Pension Scheme is entitled to have his claim examined fairly,
on the basis of the relevant records and the applicable rules.
7.11 The employee joined as GDS on 06.02.1984 and was appointed based
on unfilled vacancy circulated vide letter dated 18.11.2003.
Respondents have not been able to place any material on record which
can substantiate their claim that he was appointed on vacancy arisen
after 01.01.2004. His case is also strengthened by the judgment placed
on record.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove:
8.1 The impugned order dated 14.07.2021 rejecting the applicant’s
request for coverage under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1972, is hereby set aside.
P ANUKUMA

:: 12 :: OA No.35/2022 & 37/2022




8.2 Respondents are directed to appoint the applicant on the basis of
established fact that vacancy arose as on 18.11.2003 and extend the
consequential pensionary and retiral benefits admissible to him under
the rules.
8.3 The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent authority
by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
9. Since the question of facts and law involved in both the Original
Applications is common, both the OAs are allowed in the above
terms.
10. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. MA pending if any, also stands disposed of.


(Sanjiv Kumar) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)

//Anu//

P ANUKUMA