GDS service cannot be counted toward qualifying service for pension in regular departmental posts.

The applicant was initially engaged as a Casual Labourer on June 18, 1983, and later as an Extra-Departmental (ED) Mail Man on December 9, 1989

Following various rounds of litigation regarding his disengagement and regularization (including O.A. No. 1621/2003), the respondents were directed to count his services from March 18, 1997

Consequently, the applicant was promoted to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) on a regular basis on January 19, 2019

He retired from service upon reaching the age of superannuation on June 30, 2019

The respondents denied him pensionary benefits, asserting that he had not completed the mandatory 10 years of qualifying service

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to count 50% of his temporary/casual service toward his pension

1. Whether 50% of the service rendered by the applicant as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) or casual worker prior to regularization as MTS should be counted as qualifying service for the grant of pensionary benefits

Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which stipulates a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service for pension eligibility

the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Gandiba Behera (Civil Appeal No. 9497/2019), which established that services rendered as GDS or Extra-Departmental Agents cannot be factored into computing qualifying service for regular postal department posts

National Federation of Postal Employees & Ors. v. Union of India (Writ Petition (C) No. 1323/2021), which reiterated that GDS service is not entitled to be counted for pension or regularization

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s regular service as MTS commenced on January 19, 2019, and concluded on June 30, 2019, amounting to less than six months of regular service

This duration falls significantly short of the 10-year requirement under the CCS (Pension) Rules

While the applicant relied on Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar to argue for the inclusion of 50% of casual service, the Tribunal distinguished that case, noting that the specific legal framework governing the Postal Department and GDS (as interpreted in Gandiba Behera) explicitly prohibits importing GDS tenures to fill shortfalls in regular qualifying service

The Tribunal concluded that since the period of GDS service is legally excluded from pension calculations, the applicant lacks the requisite qualifying service

The court ruled that the applicant failed to meet the minimum qualifying service for a pension and that his prior service as a GDS or casual labourer cannot be counted toward that requirement

All associated Miscellaneous Applications were also disposed of