Past service as a GDS cannot count toward qualifying service for pension in regular postal employment.

The three applicants had served as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) before being appointed as Postmen and later retiring from service. They sought to count their GDS service as qualifying service for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and challenged Rule 6 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2011.

The respondents opposed the claim, relying on prior decisions and contending that GDS service could not be counted and that the applicants had entered regular service after commencement of the New Pension Scheme.

The applicants also sought consideration of their case for ante-dating their Postman appointments or for relaxation under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Whether the applicants’ past service as GDS could be counted as qualifying service for pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Whether the applicants were entitled to relief on their challenge to Rule 6 of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2011.

Whether the applicants could be permitted to seek ante-dating of their Postman appointments or relaxation under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

The Tribunal applied Union of India v. Gandiba Behera, (2021) 14 SCC 786, holding that service rendered as a GDS or other Extra Departmental Agent cannot be counted when computing qualifying service in a regular post under the Postal Department.

It also referred to Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules as a basis on which the applicants could seek relaxation, without deciding whether relaxation should be granted.

The applicants’ reliance on Superintendent of Post Offices v. P.K. Rajamma, AIR 1977 SC 1677, was noted as part of their claim that GDS held a civil post.

The Tribunal treated the Supreme Court’s decision in Gandiba Behera as settling the question of whether GDS service could be included in qualifying service and, on that basis, rejected the applicants’ claim to pensionary relief by counting that service.

It did not grant the requested declarations concerning Rule 6 or direct recalculation of pension. However, because the applicants had not provided details of the relevant vacancy notifications and vacancies, the Tribunal allowed them to make representations seeking either ante-dating of their Postman appointments or relaxation under Rule 88.

The applicants were permitted to submit appropriate representations within one month; the respondents were directed to consider and dispose of them within three months of receipt.

No order as to costs was made.