SATYA PAL SINGH vs POSTS

th
Reserved on 12 August, 2026

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*

Original Application No. 1029 of 2022


nd
Allahabad this the 02 day of September, 2026


Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J



Satya Pal Singh, son of Pooran Singh, resident of Wawarshi, Police station
Sardhana, Meerut.
Applicant
By Advocates: Mr. Syed Wajid Ali
Ms. Rachna Vyas.

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Senior Post Master, Meerut Cantt. Head Office – I, Meerut.

Respondents

By Advocate: Mr. Rajni Kant Rai

O R D E R

The applicant has filed the O.A under section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, seeking the following relief(s): -
(i) To set aside the impugned order dated 25.7.2022 passed by Senior
Postmaster, Meerut Cant., Head office-1 Meerut. (Annexure-4).
(ii) To direct the respondent no.2 to consider the case of the applicant
for providing pensionery and other retiral benefits according to old
pension scheme under C.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1972 (hereinafter
referred to as Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1972.
(iii) Any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit
and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award cost of the application to the applicant.”

2. It is the case of applicant that he was engaged as E.D.B.P.M.
MANISH MEHROTRA
(Rural) Village Baparsi (Sardhana), Meerut on 26.07.1979 and the charge
was made over to him on 04.09.1979 under ‘Post and Telegram Extra

2

Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. The aforesaid
appointment of the applicant was contractual in nature. In pursuance to
the memorandum issued on 22.11.2004 and 23.11.2004, the applicant
was appointed on the post of Patrawahak, which is a regular post. After
continuously discharging the duties, the applicant was superannuated on
31.01.2018. However, after retirement, the applicant has not been given
pension according to old pension scheme rather he has been given
pension under new pension scheme amounting to Rs.1735/- which is
absolutely insufficient for living life after retirement. The applicant staked
his claim for giving old pensionary benefits as he had qualified his service
for pension, however, by the impugned order the claim of the applicant
was rejected. Aggrieved with the action of the respondents, the applicant
has filed the present O.A.
3. The applicant has assailed the impugned order on the ground that
the services of applicant, rendered as E.D.B.P.M. (Rural) on contractual
basis, was liable to be counted for pension. It is now well settled that
contractual services are liable to be counted/added for qualifying service
and under what rule same has been denied, is not disclosed.
4. The respondents have filed the counter affidavit stating therein that
the applicant was engaged as Extra Departmental Branch Post Master (for
short E.D.B.P.M.) in village Baparasi (Sardhana) on 04.09.1979.
Thereafter, the applicant was appointed in Postman cadre on promotion
vide order dated 27.11.2004. After retirement on 31.01.2018, the
applicant had submitted a representation for grant of pension under the
Old Pension Scheme. After receiving the representation, same was
considered and rejected by the respondents. The respondents claimed
that the competent authority of respondents’ department on the basis of
existing rules has rightly passed the order dated 25.07.2022. The
respondents have submitted that no injustice has been done with the
MANISH MEHROTRA
applicant hence, they have prayed for dismissal of the O.A.

3

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on
record and considered the rival submissions made by counsel for the
parties.

6. In the present matter, the controversy involved is regarding
consideration of case of the applicant for providing him pension under the
Old Pension Scheme. Through the present O.A., the applicant has sought
to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 whereby
the respondents have rejected the representation dated 29.03.2022
moved by the applicant for granting the pension under Old Pension
Scheme. Earlier the applicant was engaged as E.D.B.P.M. (Rural) Village
Baparsi (Sardhana), Meerut on 26.07.1989 and the charge was given to
him on 04.09.1979. In the Limited Departmental Competitive
Examination, under the GDS quota, he was selected and appointed on a
regular post of Patrawahak. After continuously discharging the duties, he
was superannuated on 31.01.2018. However, he was not given the
pension under the Old Pension scheme due to the fact that the
respondents treated the applicant as regularized after appointment as
Patrawahak.

7. The applicant was appointed to the post of Postman, under Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination under GSD quota of EDBPM. His
screening was governed under the Indian Posts & Telegraphs (Postman
and Mail Guard) Recruitment Rules, 1989, which subsequently modified
and named as Department of Posts (Postman and Mail Guard)
Recruitment Rules, 2010. The recruitment provides three modes of
recruitment; Direct Recruitment, L.D.C.E. and Competitive Examination
limited to GDS/EDBPM. He further submitted that there is no denial of
applicant that earlier he was working as GDS/EDBPM and if, applicant has
been promoted to the post of Postman by way of Departmental
Examination, in such situation, ignoring past services for the purpose of
MANISH MEHROTRA
Pension, is against the law.

4

After perusal of impugned order dated 25.07.2022, it is evident
that applicant was denied pension under the Old Pension Scheme only on
the ground that he was regularly appointed as Postman after 01.01.2004
and on that account he is not entitled for pensionary benefits. Though in
pleadings, respondents have admitted that the applicant is entitled for
pension under New Pension Scheme, however, denied pension under Old
Pension Scheme on account of appointment after 01.01.2004.

8. For the aforesaid relief, counsel for the applicant has relied upon
several Judgments of Hon’ble High Court as well as of Hon’ble Supreme
Court. From perusal of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Prem Singh V. State of Uttar Pradesh and others AIR 2019 SC
4392, it is apparent that the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that past
services rendered in casual capacity/work charged basis are to be
considered for the purpose of pension. In O.A No. 917/04 [Chandi Lal
Vs. U.O.I and Ors.] decided on 2.9.2015 by CAT, Allahabad Bench,
the applicant was working in the Department of Posts on work charge
establishment w.e.f. 15.04.1982. He was granted temporary status w.e.f.
29.11.1989 and thereafter, he was brought on the pay scale of Group ‘D’
employees and also accorded service benefits admissible to the Group ‘D’
employee. Though no formal order of the regularisation was issued in the
said case but the Tribunal held the applicant entitled to pension treating
him a Group ‘D’ regular employee. The Writ Petition No. 11297/2006
filed against the said order was dismissed by Hon’ble Allahabad High
Court vide order dated 02.03.2007 reported in 2007 AHC 2752 (DB)
and Hon’ble Supreme Court also upheld the order of Tribunal and High
Court vide order dated 03.03.2008 passed in SLP (Civil) No.
3248/2008 . The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP not only on account
of Delay but also on merits. The Supreme Court said:-
“ There is an inordinate delay of 223 days in filing the present petition. The
MANISH MEHROTRA
explanation offered in the application for condonation of delay is neither
satisfactory nor reasonable. The application for condonation of delay is,
therefore, dismissed.

5

Even on merits, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order. Consequently the special Leave petition is dismissed
both on ground of delay and merit.”


9. The cases of Chandi Lal [Supra] and Shyam Lal Shukla
[Supra] went up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it has been settled
that such employees shall be deemed to have been regularized and
consequently required to be treated as regular employees of the
respondents’ department and consequently, they are entitled to all
pensionary benefits.

10. Recently vide order dated 01.12.2023 the Division Bench of
Allahabad High Court in Writ (A) Petition No.10505/2023 (Union of
India & Ors. vs. Heera Lal & Anrs.) has also taken a similar view and
held that: -
“We are also mindful of the fact that no such exercise is required to be
made in the present facts as the respondent and others are individual
citizens, pitted against the almighty State that too none other than the
Union of India. A citizen who has given all his productive life to Union of
India, may not be out witted on legal niceties and procedural technicalities
at the behest of the Union of India. The respondent has no option
available to survive in life or to do anything other than what he did for
more than 30 years i.e. to serve the Union of India. His productive years
are lost. Accordingly, interference is declined. Writ petition is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
38. Let all pensionary dues be computed and paid out to the respondent
within next three months, in any case not later than 31.03.2024, failing
which the same may attract interest @ 6 % per annum.”


11. In the case of “ Bhikhani Devi and Etc. V. Union of India and
others 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1055 ”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
recently observed, as under: -
“ 62. It is to be noted that these aforesaid four categories are not to be
conflated as stages required to be gone through to become a regular employee. It
may be pointed here that a casual labourer can directly become a regular
employee, if the Scheme provides for such transition. A temporary Government
employee, however, definitely has two stages leading to permanent employment
MANISH MEHROTRA
i.e. initial appointment as temporary Government employee and upon confirmation
in service, his status is changed to regular government employee .

6

. . . . . .
64. The Scheme, in question, which provides for grant of temporary status and
regularisation for casual labourers recognises four categories of employees
operating within the service structure, however, the progression contemplated
therein essentially unfolds in three stages i.e. engagement as a casual labourer,
conferment and continuance of temporary status, and eventual regularisation
against Group 'D' posts.”

12. It is settled that continuous temporary or ad hoc service, prior to
01.01.2004, followed by regularization or regular appointment against
vacant post, the employee’s past services shall be counted towards
qualifying for Old Pension Scheme (OPS). In such a situation, the
applicant cannot be deprived of benefit of past service rendered as
EDBPM/GDS for the purpose of OPS.

13. In the present case, the applicant was engaged as E.D.B.P.M. on
26.07.1979 and the charge was made over to him on 04.09.1979. He
was regularly appointed as Postman after clearing the Limited
Departmental Competitive Examination under GSD quota vide
Memorandum dated 22.11.2004 and 23.11.2004. According to the
aforesaid legal position, he will be treated as employee from the date i.e.
04.09.1979 considering the previous length of service. Therefore, the
case of applicant is to be seen in the light of the fact that initial
appointment of applicant was in the year 1979 and he has discharged his
duties with the respondents under GDS Rules and subsequently regularly
appointed to the post of Postman under the rules which provide direct
entry/by way of promotion under the quota of GDS. Therefore, the past
services rendered under GDS Rule shall be considered for the purpose of
pensionary benefits and the applicant is entitled to get regular pension
under the Old Pension scheme.

14. In the case of Bhikhani Devi (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has further observed, as under: -
MANISH MEHROTRA
81. Insofar as the contention of the Respondents with regard to delay
and laches is concerned, it is well settled that pensionary benefits
constitute a continuing cause of action, and a claim for pension cannot be

7

defeated solely on the ground of delay. At the same time, the claim for
arrears is required to be balanced with settled principles governing
limitation. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to
indicate that the Appellants had raised any claim for pensionary benefits
prior to filing of the respective Original Applications before the Tribunal. In
such circumstances, while the entitlement of the Appellants to pensionary
and consequential retiral benefits stands established, the arrears thereof,
wherever applicable, shall remain confined to the period of three years
and two months preceding the date of filing of the respective Original
Applications before the Tribunal, consistent with settled principles
governing service jurisprudence.

In view of the aforesaid case laws, I am in opinion that the
applicant is entitled to get pension under the Old Pension Scheme.
However, actual relief regarding pension and arrear shall be restricted for
only three years preceding date of filing of O.A. considering the Judgment
of Bhikhani Devi (supra).

15. Therefore, after consideration, the OA is allowed. The impugned
order dated 25.07.2022 (annexure-4) is quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to ensure the payment of pension and other due
post-retiral benefits to the applicant, treating the applicant as a regular
appointee in Group ‘D’ employee with all consequential benefits, within
the next three months, from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. However, the respondents are directed to ensure the payment of
pension and arrears, which shall be restricted for only three years
preceding date of filing of O.A.

16. The respondents are further directed to ensure the regular monthly
family pension to the applicant under the Old Pension Scheme. All the
pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to
costs.

(Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Judicial)

MANISH MEHROTRA
/M.M/