CAT Gives Postal Department 3 Months To Decide Whether Retiree’s Nearly 30 Years As EDDA Count Toward Pension

The applicant was engaged as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA) in 1975, appointed regularly as a Postman on 20 July 2005, promoted to Mail Overseer in 2009, and retired on 31 December 2014.

After retirement, he sought pension and other retiral benefits, including benefits under the Central Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1980 (CGEIS). His claim was rejected on the ground that he entered regular government service after attaining 50 years of age.

He applied under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking, among other reliefs, recognition of his EDDA and other service for pension purposes and payment under CGEIS

He had previously pursued applications concerning appointment as Postman; one was disposed of with a direction to consider his representation, and another was dismissed as infructuous after his appointment

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, provides the basis for the applicant’s Original Application

The Tribunal applied the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence discussed by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014, decided on 17 October 2014: employees who do not timely challenge an adverse action and later seek the benefit obtained by others will ordinarily be treated as fence-sitters, subject to exceptions such as a judgment intended to operate in rem

The Tribunal also stated that whether EDDA service counts towards qualifying service must be assessed under the applicable pension rules and departmental instructions.

The applicant’s CGEIS entitlement depended on the scheme’s applicable eligibility conditions

The applicant accepted his regular Postman appointment in 2005, did not then obtain or seek an order granting retrospective effect, and later secured promotion to Group ‘C’. The Tribunal therefore held that his post-retirement attempt to reopen the effective date of appointment was barred by delay, laches and acquiescence

It did not determine that EDDA service was either countable or excluded; instead, it directed the respondents to decide whether that service could be counted under the applicable law.

As the applicant had not shown that his EDDA engagement brought him within CGEIS eligibility or that the rejection contravened a rule or instruction, the Tribunal found no basis to interfere with that decision

The claims for retrospective appointment from the date of the alleged vacancy and for CGEIS benefits were refused.

No order as to costs was made, and the associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of