Direct recruits cannot claim retrospective appointment or old-pension coverage from the date a vacancy arose.

The applicant served as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) from 1979 and was appointed as a Postman on 24 March 2005 against a vacancy identified as pertaining to 2003.

He contended that departmental delay in completing the selection should not deprive him of coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and sought retrospective appointment from the date of vacancy. He also sought to count his GDS service towards qualifying service for pension.

The respondents stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) met on 9 March 2005, after administrative approval for filling the 2003 vacancies, and that the applicant was governed by the new pension scheme because he was appointed after 1 January 2004.

Whether the applicant, appointed as a Postman in March 2005 against a vacancy of 2003, was entitled to retrospective appointment from the date of the vacancy and coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Whether the applicant’s service as a GDS could be counted as qualifying service for pension and pensionary benefits.

Under Y. Najithamol v. Soumya S.D., a GDS, though holding a civil post, is outside the regular civil service; appointment from GDS to Postman is direct recruitment, not promotion.

A candidate appointed through direct recruitment cannot claim appointment or seniority from a date before their regular appointment merely because the vacancy arose earlier; eligibility to be considered does not create a vested right to appointment, as reflected in the authorities discussed by the Kerala High Court in OP (CAT) No. 317 of 2016.

The Government of India Office Memorandum dated 17 February 2020 provides coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 where recruitment results were notified before 1 January 2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31 December 2003.

The Tribunal treated the applicant’s appointment as direct recruitment, not promotion, in light of Y. Najithamol.

It therefore found that his eligibility for selection against a 2003 vacancy did not give him a vested right to be appointed from the vacancy’s date.

The selection took place through a DPC in March 2005, and the Tribunal considered the 2020 Office Memorandum inapplicable because the recruitment result was not notified before 1 January 2004.

The same distinction between GDS service and regular civil service defeated the claim to count his GDS period as qualifying service for pension.

The Original Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.