Suspension period and unauthorized absence treated as EXOL do not count as qualifying service for pension.

The applicant joined the Postal Department as a Postal Assistant in 1982.

Due to alleged mental illness, he remained absent from duty, leading to a period of suspension from February 1986 to October 1988.

Following a disciplinary inquiry under Rule 14, he was initially removed from service, but on appeal, the penalty was modified to compulsory retirement in 2004.

Upon retirement, he was granted gratuity but denied pension on the grounds that he had only rendered 9 years and 6 months of qualifying service, falling short of the mandatory 10-year threshold.

The applicant challenged several orders, including the refusal to treat his suspension period and a period of absence between 01.03.1996 and 31.12.1997 (initially treated as EXOL/unauthorized absence) as qualifying service.

1. Whether the period spent under suspension and the period of absence from 01.03.1996 to 31.12.1997 should be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of granting pension

The Tribunal applied Rule 10 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which stipulates that conversion or commutation of leave is not permissible after an employee has ceased to be in service and must generally be requested within 30 days of rejoining duty.

It further relied on the legal principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in District and Sessions Judge Delhi v. Sanjeev Verma, interpreting Rule 23 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

Under these rules, a suspension period counts as qualifying service only if: (i) the employee is fully exonerated; (ii) the suspension is held to be wholly unjustified; or (iii) the competent authority expressly directs it to be counted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet any of the three criteria required to count suspension as qualifying service. He was not exonerated, as he was penalized with compulsory retirement following a disciplinary inquiry.

The suspension was not deemed "wholly unjustified," nor did the competent authority issue a specific direction to treat said period as qualifying service.

Regarding the period from 1996 to 1997, the Tribunal noted that the applicant failed to convert the leave within the statutory timeframe prescribed by Rule 10 of the CCS (Leave) Rules.

Consequently, since the applicant remained short of the 10-year minimum service requirement after excluding these non-qualifying periods, he was ineligible for pensionary benefits.

The Original Application was dismissed, and the orders of the respondents denying the pension were upheld. No order was made as to costs.