Service as Gramin Dak Sevak is not pensionable or countable for qualifying service under CCS (Pension) Rules.

The applicant was initially engaged as an Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (EDMC) on November 16, 1978.

Following a selection process, he was appointed to the regular cadre of Postman on August 1, 2006.

Upon his appointment, he was placed under the National Pension System (NPS), which applies to government service entrants on or after January 1, 2004.

The applicant retired on January 31, 2017, and subsequently received Gratuity and CGEGIS, but was denied monthly pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

He submitted a representation in 2020 requesting that his service as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) be counted toward the qualifying service for pension under the old rules, arguing his initial recruitment predated the NPS.

The respondents rejected this, asserting that GDS service is distinct from regular government service and that his regular appointment post-2004 mandatorily invoked the NPS.

1. Whether the service rendered as an Extra Departmental Agent/Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) can be reckoned as qualifying service for the grant of pension under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

2. Whether an employee appointed to a regular government post after January 1, 2004, following prior service as a GDS, is entitled to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme instead of the National Pension System.

Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules: GDS are holders of civil posts outside the regular civil services and are not governed by rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

GDS service cannot be counted toward regular qualifying service for pension as established in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera (2021) and Union of India v. Paras Ram.

The transition from GDS to Postman is categorized as "direct recruitment" and not "promotion," thereby marking a fresh entry into government service as held in Y. Najithamol v. Soumya S.D. (2016).

The Tribunal reasoned that because the applicant’s appointment to the regular cadre of Postman on August 1, 2006, constituted a "direct recruitment," it represented a new entry into the government service after the January 1, 2004 cutoff for the NPS.

The Bench noted that GDS/EDMC positions are distinct from regular departmental posts, characterized by different service conditions and a lack of pensionable status under their own governing rules.

Applying the ratio in Gandiba Behera, the Tribunal observed that regular service for pension purposes counts only from the date of regular appointment.

The Tribunal also highlighted the issue of delay and laches, noting the applicant contributed to NPS for over a decade without objection and only sought the Old Pension Scheme benefits three years after retirement, which would cause "immense prejudice" to the contributory system.

The court answered both issues in the negative, affirming that the appointment as Postman was a fresh direct recruitment.

Consequently, the O.A. was dismissed, and the challenged rejection orders dated July 14, 2020, and August 4, 2020, were upheld.