Ram Awadh Yadav vs Post Master General Gorakhpur Region

Reserved on 12.10.2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD

th
Dated: This the 30 day of October 2026

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

Original Application No. 330/01116/2018

Ram Awadh Yadav aged about 64 years, S/o Ram Narayan Yadav, R/o
Village & Post Prasadpur, District Ballia.
...........Applicant.
By Advocate: Mr. Ashish Srivastava

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Telecommunication & IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
New Delhi.

2. Postmaster General, Gorakhpur.

3. Superintendant of Post Offices, Ballia Division, Ballia.

..........Respondents.

By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra
O R D E R
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant
under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking
following reliefs:-
“a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the
post retiral benefits and pension on his retirement on 31.12.2014 by including
the service rendered by the applicant as Extra Departmental Agent and
regular departmental employee under the respondent no. 3.
(b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the
admissible amount due to the applicant under CGEIS Scheme on his
retirement.
(c) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the
MANISH KUMAR
12% interest on the due payment to the applicant.
SRIVASTAVA
(d) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

2

(e) the original Award the costs of application applicant”.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The applicant was initially appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery
Agent at Pur Branch Post Office. Being the senior-most Extra Departmental
Employee in Ballia Division, he sought appointment as Postman against a
vacant post through representations and legal proceedings. Vide order dated
20.07.2005, he was selected as Postman on the basis of seniority and
fitness. He was subsequently promoted to Group 'C' as Mail Overseer vide
order dated 04.09.2009 and retired on 31.12.2014. After retirement, the
applicant sought pension and other retirement benefits, including benefits
under the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme
(CGEIS), 1980. However, his claim was rejected vide order dated
04.04.2016 on the ground that he entered regular government service after
attaining the age of 50 years. Aggrieved by the rejection, the applicant has
filed the present O.A. seeking admissible pensionary and other retirement
benefits.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the
allegations made in the O.A. It has been stated that the the applicant, who
was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent on 15.09.1975,
worked as Postman on an ad-hoc or temporary basis for certain periods
during 2002 and 2004. They contend that such temporary service did not
confer any right to regular appointment as Postman or Group 'D' employee.
It is further submitted that, under the applicable Recruitment Rules,
vacancies were to be filled through different prescribed modes, including
departmental selection and seniority-cum-fitness. The applicant did not
appear in the departmental competitive examination, nor was he within the
zone of consideration in the DPCs held on 06.05.2004 and 29.07.2004,
having regard to his position in the seniority list. The respondents state that
the applicant was considered along with other eligible employees in the
DPC held in 2005 and was appointed as Postman vide order dated
20.07.2005. They, therefore, contend that the applicant's appointment was
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
made in accordance with the applicable rules and his claim for any earlier
regular appointment is without merit. Accordingly, the respondents pray for
dismissal of the O.A.

3



4. No rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant.
5. I have heard Mr. Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the
applicant, and Shri Ajay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
respondents, and have perused the record.
6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant
was initially appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent at Pur
Branch Post Office, Ballia Division, on 15.09.1975. He was subsequently
appointed as Postman on 20.07.2005 on the basis of seniority and fitness
and was further promoted to the post of Mail Overseer in Group ‘C’ vide
order dated 04.09.2009. He retired from service on 31.12.2014. It is
contended that the applicant rendered more than 30 years of service in the
respondents’ department and his long service as Extra Departmental
Delivery Agent, followed by his service as Postman and Mail Overseer,
deserves consideration while determining his entitlement to pension and
other retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted
that the applicant had also worked as Postman on a temporary/ad-hoc basis
before his regular appointment and had approached this Tribunal through
earlier Original Applications seeking consideration of his claim for
appointment. It is contended that the delay in granting him regular
appointment, despite his long service and claim based on seniority, should
not deprive him of benefits admissible under the applicable rules.
Therefore, the applicant seeks consideration of his past service for
determining his qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits. It
is further submitted that the respondents were required to consider the
service rendered by the applicant as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in
the light of the applicable pension rules and departmental instructions. The
applicant also challenges the order dated 04.04.2016 rejecting his claim
under the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
(CGEIS), 1980, on the ground that he entered regular government service
after attaining the age of 50 years. He accordingly seeks pension, gratuity

4

and other admissible retiral benefits, including benefits under the CGEIS,
1980, along with consequential benefits.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted
that the applicant was initially engaged as Extra Departmental Delivery
Agent on 15.09.1975 but was regularly appointed as Postman only on
20.07.2005, after due consideration by the Departmental Promotion
Committee under the applicable Recruitment Rules. It is contended that his
earlier temporary/ad-hoc engagement as Postman did not amount to regular
appointment and did not confer any right upon him to claim regular service
from an earlier date. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that the applicant had earlier filed O.A. No. 55/2003 seeking consideration
of his claim for appointment as Postman. The said O.A. was disposed of on
04.04.2003 with a direction to the respondents to consider his
representation dated 24.12.2002. In compliance with the direction, his
representation was considered and rejected by a speaking order dated
29.04.2003. It is further submitted that the DPCs held on 06.05.2004 and
29.07.2004 considered eligible employees in accordance with the
applicable procedure, but the applicant was not within the zone of
consideration on the basis of his seniority. He had also neither applied for
nor qualified in the departmental competitive examination. Learned counsel
for the respondents next contended that the applicant was subsequently
considered by the DPC held in 2005 and was appointed as Postman vide
order dated 20.07.2005. Learned counsel for the respondents next submitted
that O.A. No. 990/2004, filed by the applicant seeking appointment as
Postman, was dismissed on 19.10.2005 as having become infructuous after
he was granted appointment. It is contended that the applicant accepted the
appointment and did not challenge the date from which it was made
effective. He subsequently earned promotion to the post of Mail Overseer
in Group ‘C’ on 04.09.2009 and retired from that post on 31.12.2014.
According to the respondents, his earlier engagement as Extra
Departmental Delivery Agent and his temporary/ad-hoc service as Postman
cannot automatically be treated as regular qualifying service for pensionary
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
purposes. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the
applicant’s entitlement to pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits is
governed by the applicable service and pension rules. The mere fact that he

5

rendered long service in the department does not entitle him to have the
entire period of service as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent counted as
qualifying service. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted
that the applicant’s claim under the CGEIS, 1980, was rightly rejected vide
order dated 04.04.2016, as he entered regular government service after
attaining the age of 50 years and was, therefore, not eligible for coverage
under the aforesaid scheme. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the impugned order does not warrant
interference and pray for dismissal of the O.A.
8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both parties
and perused the material available on record.
9. From the record, it is evident that the applicant was initially engaged
as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA). The Branch Post Office
concerned was subsequently upgraded as a Sub Post Office. The applicant
claims that a vacancy in the cadre of Postman arose upon upgradation of
Post Office and he was entitled to regular appointment against the said
vacancy by virtue of his seniority and length of service.
10 . The applicant’s case is also that, despite his repeated requests and the
direction issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 55/2003, the respondents did
not grant him regular appointment as Postman from the date the vacancy
arose. He further claims that other similarly placed EDDA employees were
appointed as Postman and he was granted regular appointment only after
filing O.A. No. 990/2004. On this basis, he seeks the benefit of his alleged
earlier entitlement for the purpose of calculating his pension and other
retiral benefits.
11. The respondents, on the other hand, have submitted that the DPCs
held on 06.05.2004 and 29.07.2004 considered eligible GDS employees in
accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, but the applicant was
not within the zone of consideration. According to them, he was considered
and appointed as Postman only when the next DPC was convened in 2005.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
It is also evident from the record that O.A. No. 55/2003 was disposed of
with a direction to consider the applicant’s representation, which was
thereafter decided by a speaking order. Subsequently, O.A. No. 990/2004

6

was dismissed on 19.10.2005 as having become infructuous, since the
applicant had been granted appointment as Postman.
12. The material on record further shows that the applicant was
appointed as Postman on 20.07.2005 and thereafter promoted to the post of
Mail Overseer in Group ‘C’ on 04.09.2009. He accepted the appointment as
Postman and joined the post after completing the prescribed training. He
did not challenge the date of his regular appointment or seek a direction for
appointment with retrospective effect at that stage. The present O.A. was
filed in 2018, after his retirement on 31.12.2014.
13. In State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava
and Others , Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014, decided on 17.10.2014 , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the effect of delay, laches and
acquiescence in service matters. the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:-
“However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches
and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the
wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long
delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the
Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim
that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be
extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or
the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. (3) However, this
exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court
was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons,
whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation
is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated
person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches
upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma
& Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was
in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties
before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be
impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to
get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their
petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence”.
Thus , the Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that employees
who did not challenge the relevant action in time and approach the Court
after a long delay cannot ordinarily claim the benefit granted to similarly
situated persons who had approached the Court earlier.
14. Applying the above principles to the present case, I find that the
applicant’s regular appointment as Postman was made in 2005 and he
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
accepted the same without obtaining any order granting retrospective effect
from the date of the alleged vacancy. Although he had earlier approached
this Tribunal for consideration of his claim for appointment/promotion,

7

which was dismissed as infructuous after the relief of promotion had been
granted. No direction was issued in that O.A. to grant him appointment
from an earlier date. Having accepted the appointment and subsequently
obtained promotion to Group ‘C’, the applicant cannot, after retirement,
seek to reopen the question of the effective date of his promotion merely on
the basis of his earlier engagement as EDDA or temporary service as
Postman. The claim for retrospective appointment is thus barred by the
principles of delay, laches and acquiescence.
15. As regards the claim for counting the applicant’s service as EDDA
towards qualifying service for pension and other retiral benefits, such
entitlement must be determined under the applicable pension rules and
valid departmental instructions and also on the basis of settled principle of
law.
16. The applicant’s claim under the Central Government Employees
Group Insurance Scheme (CGEIS), 1980, has also been rejected by the
respondents on the ground that he entered regular government service after
attaining the age of 50 years. The applicant has not established that his
earlier engagement as EDDA brings him within the eligibility conditions of
the said scheme or the impugned order dated 04.04.2016 is contrary to any
applicable rule or instruction. Thus I find no sufficient ground on the
material placed before us to interfere with the respondents’ decision on this
point.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the original application is
disposed of with the direction to the respondents to take a decision for
counting the applicant’s service rendered by him as EDDA towards
qualifying service, if permissible under law within a period of three months
from the date of production of this order. It is clarified that prayer of the
applicant for direction to treat the applicant’s promotion from the date of
vacancy as well as prayer for benefit under CGEIS scheme have been
refused. There shall be no order as to costs. All associated MAs stand
disposed of.
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
( JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII )
Member (J)
Manish