Service rendered as Gramin Dak Sevak is not countable for pensionary benefits or regularization.

The applicants are Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) formerly or currently employed under the Postal Department in the Kerala Circle

They approached the Tribunal seeking the grant of pension, citing a favorable order passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A No. 749 of 2015 (Annexure A1)

The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the legal landscape regarding the status of GDS for pensionary benefits had shifted significantly since the filing of the applications

Whether the services rendered as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) qualify to be counted for the purpose of pension or the grant of other regularisation reliefs

The Tribunal applied the precedent established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y. Najithamol & Ors. v. Soumya S.D. & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2015], which modified the prior understanding of GDS service conditions

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India & Ors. v. Gandiba Behera [(2021) 14 SCC 786], which categorically held that GDS service cannot be counted for pensionary benefits

the Tribunal noted the reversal of the Principal Bench's decision (O.A No. 749/2015) by the Delhi High Court in W.P (C) No. 3569/2017 based on the Gandiba Behera precedent

The Tribunal analyzed the applicants' claims in light of the evolving jurisprudence from superior courts.

Although the applicants initially relied on the Principal Bench's decision in O.A No. 749 of 2015, the Tribunal observed that this decision was expressly reversed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi

The Tribunal reasoned that the Supreme Court in Gandiba Behera had finalized the legal position by affirming that GDS are not entitled to have their services counted for pension or regularisation

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the legal foundation of the applicants’ request had been dismantled by these subsequent judicial pronouncements, rendering the relief sought unsustainable

Both Original Applications (O.A No. 873/2017 and O.A No. 965/2017) were dismissed

No orders were made as to costs