GDS service not countable for pension in regular postal department posts.

The applicant, M. Suseela, served as a Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS) with the Department of Posts from 10.06.1978 and was promoted to a Postman cadre in 2009 under the 25% seniority quota.

Her prior GDS service was recognized for eligibility to appear in the departmental examination.

She rendered over 20 years of service as a GDS and subsequently as a Postwoman until her superannuation on 31.04.2020.

The applicant has not received any pensionary benefits and filed a representation on 09.02.2021 seeking release of the same.

Whether the applicant is entitled to the disbursement of pension and the inclusion of her service rendered as a GDS Official from 10.06.1978 to 14.09.2009 for calculating her total service period for pensionary benefits.

The court applied the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 3569/2017 and connected cases, which relied significantly on the Supreme Court's judgment in Gandiba Behera (supra).

This precedent established that service rendered by employees in the postal department in the capacity of GDS would generally not be considered for calculating qualifying service for pension after their selection to regular posts.

The Supreme Court in Gandiba Behera (supra), after considering previous judgments such as P.K. Rajamma (supra), Vinod Kumar Saxena (supra), Union of India & Ors. v. Registrar, and D.S. Nakara (supra), explicitly stated that there is no legal provision to add the period of service rendered as GDS to regular tenure in the Postal Department for fulfilling qualifying service for pension.

It also referenced Clause 6 of the 2011 Rules, which stipulates that Sevaks are not entitled to any pension, though the striking down of this rule by the Central Administrative Tribunal was noted as not being of much relevance to the specific controversy.

The rule of law also considered that GDS posts were part-time in nature and not comparable to work-charged employees, and their subsequent service in regular posts was guided by different service rules.

The Tribunal noted that the issue in the present Original Application (OA) was no longer res integra (a matter of first impression).

The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the matter was covered by the Judgment dated 31.10.2025 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 3569/2017 and connected cases.

This High Court judgment, in turn, heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Gandiba Behera (supra), which clarified that the service rendered by GDSs, even if they later joined regular posts, cannot be counted for calculating qualifying service for pension.

The Supreme Court in Gandiba Behera (supra) had specifically addressed and rejected similar claims, highlighting that the GDS post did not constitute full-time employment and that there is no specific rule or administrative circular to compute GDS service period to fill the gap in qualifying service requirements for regular posts.

The Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 3569/2017 explicitly stated that the Supreme Court's decision in Gandiba Behera (supra) "completely answers the dispute" against the petitioners seeking to count GDS service for pension.

Although the Supreme Court noted that some respondents might miss pension due to marginal shortfalls and deserve "sympathetic consideration", it clarified that it could not "trace our power or jurisdiction to any legal principle which could permit us to fill up the shortfall by importing into their service tenure, the period of work they rendered as GDS or its variants".

Based on this binding precedent, the Tribunal found no legal basis to grant the applicant's request.

It was held that, in view of the binding precedents, particularly the decision in Gandiba Behera (supra) as followed by the Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 3569/2017, the applicant failed to make out a case for including her GDS service period for pensionary benefits.

No order as to costs was made.