SHRI PAL vs POST UP CIRCLE

1

(Reserved on 05.08.2026)
Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad

Original Application No. 325 of 2025
th
This the 27 Day of August, 2026.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Shri Pal (Retired Postal Assistant), Ganga Nagar Colony Badaun Road, District-
Bareilly, U. P. -243001.
….Applicant
By Advocates: Mr. Indramani Tripathi
Mr. Monarch Tripathi

Versus

1. Union Of India through Secretary Ministry of Communication, Dak Bhavan,
New Delhi, 110001.
2 Chief General Manager, Head Post Office, Lucknow.
3. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bareilly Division, District-Bareilly.
.…Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Vidyapati Tripathi
O R D E R
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Heard Mr. Monarch Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and
Mr. Vidyapati Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section
19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking, inter alia,
quashing of the order dated 02.11.2021 whereby the applicant's claim
for pensionary/retiral benefits was rejected and a direction for
payment of pension, gratuity, provident fund and other admissible dues
along with interest.

3. The case of the applicant, as pleaded in the Original
Application, is that he was appointed as Dak Assistant in the Postal
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

2

Department on 04.01.1983 on a regular, substantive and permanent
post. His name appears with variations as “Sri Sri Pal”, “Sri Pal” and
“Shree Pal” in departmental records, which, according to him, are
typographical errors relating to the same person. He claims to have
served without any adverse entry, disciplinary proceeding or
punishment.

3.1 It has further been pleaded that the applicant submitted his
resignation on 24.12.1992 after rendering 9 years, 11 months and 20
days of service and after taking into account the admissible periods, his
qualifying service would exceed ten years. His specific case is that the
resignation was neither accepted nor was any order regarding its
acceptance communicated to him. He thereafter approached the
respondents for pensionary benefits, but his claim was rejected vide
order dated 02.11.2021 on the ground that he had not completed ten
years of qualifying service. He also sought the relevant service records
under the RTI Act and was informed that the records had been weeded
out.


4. The respondents, in their Counter Affidavit, have pleaded that
there is no material to establish that the applicant continued in regular
service after submitting his resignation on 24.12.1992. It has further
been pleaded that, in response to his RTI application, no employee in
the name of Shri Pal (Postal Assistant) was found working in Bareilly
Division and that the relevant service records are no longer available.
Reliance has also been placed upon Rule 212(e) of F.H.B. Volume-I
regarding preservation and destruction of service records.

5. In the rejoinder affidavit, the applicant has reiterated the facts
pleaded in the Original Application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has assailed the impugned
order, contending that the resignation cannot be treated as having
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

3

brought the applicant's service to an end when there is no order
showing its acceptance. It is further contended that, after taking into
account the admissible periods, his qualifying service exceeded ten
years and that the Department cannot deny his pensionary benefits
merely because the old service records are no longer available. It is also
stated that the departmental entries containing variations in his name
relate to the applicant and that his claim ought to have been examined
in accordance with the applicable pension rules.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the
Original Application, contending that there is no material showing
continuation of the applicant in service after 24.12.1992. It is further
contended that there is no material to show that the resignation was
tendered for taking up another Government appointment with proper
permission or the applicant falls within any exception under the
applicable pension rules. The applicant has also failed to produce
material establishing that his qualifying service legally exceeded ten
years.

8. The Tribunal has considered the rival submissions and carefully
gone through the pleadings and material available on record.

9. It is not in dispute that the applicant submitted his resignation on
24.12.1992 after rendering 9 years, 11 months and 20 days of service.
Although the applicant contends that his resignation was never
accepted, no order accepting the resignation is available on record. At
the same time, there is no material showing that the applicant
continued in Government service thereafter. The departmental entries
relied upon by him may explain the variation in his name, but do not
establish his continuation in qualifying service after 24.12.1992.

10. The applicant's claim was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide
order dated 02.11.2021, which reads as under:
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

4


“Subject: Regarding payment of pension.
Ref: Application payment of pension
With reference to the above cited letter it is to inform that
Service book with records are preserved for 3 Years after
resignation/retirement. Since, you have given resignation in the
year 1992 i.e. 29 Yrs ago, no record is available in this office for
reference. Also, it may be noted that employees are eligible for
pension only after 10 years of regular service. In your case the
requirement of the same is not fulfilled.”

The correctness of the aforesaid decision is required to be
examined with reference to the applicable pension rules.

11. The applicant's service conditions were governed by the Postal
Manual and the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Rule 26 of the CCS
(Pension) Rules, 1972, dealing with forfeiture of service on resignation,
reads as under:
“26. Forfeiture of service on resignation.—
(1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be
withdrawn in the public interest by the appointing
authority, entails forfeiture of past service.

(2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it
has been submitted to take up, with proper permission,
another appointment, whether temporary or permanent,
under the Government where service qualifies.
(3) Interruption in service in a case falling under sub-rule (2),
due to the two appointments being at different stations, not
exceeding the joining time permissible under the rules of
transfer, shall be covered by grant of leave of any kind due to
the Government servant on the date of relief or by formal
condonation to the extent to which the period is not covered
by leave due to him.”

12. The effect of Rule 26 has been considered by the Apex Court in
Union of India & Ors. v. Braj Nandan Singh, (2005) 8 SCC 325. The
Court held that Rule 26 relates to forfeiture of service on resignation;
the language of sub-rule (1) is mandatory; and that sub-rule (2) is in the
nature of an exception. The Court further held that, after past service is
forfeited, the same has to be excluded from the period of qualifying
service and, consequently, such forfeited service cannot be counted for
determining entitlement to pension.
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

5


13. The principle has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead through Legal Heirs) v. Delhi
Transport Corporation, 2025 INSC 1404, while considering the effect
of Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

14. In the present case, there is neither any pleading nor any
material to show that the applicant tendered his resignation dated
24.12.1992 for taking up, with proper permission, another appointment
under the Government. Thus, the exception contained in Rule 26(2) has
not been shown to be applicable.

15. It is also relevant to notice that the delay in filing the present
Original Application had already been condoned by this Tribunal vide
order dated 15.04.2025. The applicant had tendered his resignation on
24.12.1992, whereas the present Original Application was filed in the
year 2025, i.e. after a lapse of more than 32 years from the date of
resignation. During this intervening period, the relevant service records
of the applicant had been weeded out in accordance with the
applicable record-retention provisions, and the applicant was also
informed by the Department, in response to his RTI application, that
such records were no longer available. These circumstances are
relevant for appreciating the material available on record, particularly
the applicant's claim regarding his continuation in service and
qualifying service. However, since the delay in filing the Original
Application had already been condoned vide order dated 15.04.2025,
the matter is being considered and decided on its merits.


16. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the resignation
dated 24.12.1992 was accepted and became effective, the applicant
has failed to establish that his case falls within the exception contained
in Rule 26(2). In that event, the consequence contemplated by Rule
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA

6

26(1) would follow and the past service would not be available for
being counted as qualifying service for pension.

17. The non-availability of the old service records also does not, by
itself, establish the applicant's entitlement to pension. No material has
been produced showing his continuation in service after 24.12.1992.
Likewise, no specific material has been placed on record establishing
any quantified amount towards provident fund or other retiral dues
which became payable to the applicant and was unlawfully withheld.

18. As regards gratuity, the entitlement is governed by the
applicable provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the
rules applicable to the applicant. However, in the present proceedings,
the applicant has not placed on record sufficient material to establish
his specific entitlement or the amount, if any, payable to him. No
direction for payment of a quantified amount towards gratuity can,
therefore, be issued.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the applicant has failed to
establish an enforceable right to pension on the basis of the service
rendered by him prior to 24.12.1992 or to show that his case falls within
the exception contained in Rule 26(2) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.
The impugned order dated 02.11.2021, insofar as it rejects the claim for
pension for want of the requisite qualifying service, therefore, does not
warrant interference.

20. Accordingly, the Original Application is found devoid of merit
and is dismissed.


21. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending M.A.s, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member (J)
Sushil
SUSHIL KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA