Two Retired Postmen Win Old-Pension Benefits After CAT Finds Their Vacancy Arose Before 2004

In brief

The question

Whether the applicants’ pre-1 January 2004 selection and inclusion in the approved list entitled them to coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite joining the Postman cadre after that date.

The court held

The Tribunal set aside the rejection order dated 14 July 2021 and allowed both applications.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to appoint the lead applicant on the stated basis that the vacancy arose as of 18 November 2003, extend the consequential pensionary and retiral benefits admissible under the rules, and complete the exercise by a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicants, who had been serving as Gramin Dak Sevaks, succeeded in a departmental examination for the Postman cadre conducted on 8 June 2003.

¶ 2.1–2.5, 7.1

Their names were included in an approved-candidates memorandum dated 18 November 2003, which stated that allotment orders would follow completion of training.

¶ 2.1–2.5, 7.1

Training and allotment occurred in 2006, and the applicants joined the Postman cadre after the New Pension Scheme’s 1 January 2004 commencement date.

¶ 2.1–2.5, 7.1

The Tribunal heard the two applications together because they raised common questions of fact and law.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the applicants’ pre-1 January 2004 selection and inclusion in the approved list entitled them to coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, despite joining the Postman cadre after that date.

¶ 7, 7.1–7.2

ii.Whether the respondents’ rejection of the pension claim was sustainable without a reasoned examination of the relevant recruitment and vacancy records under the applicable Office Memoranda.

¶ 7.4–7.7

03Law Applied

The CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, govern the Old Pension Scheme.

¶ 2.5, 4.6, 7.3

The Office Memorandum dated 17 February 2020 provided a one-time option for specified employees whose selection had been finalised before 1 January 2004 but who joined service on or after that date, subject to its conditions; paragraph 7(ii) excluded certain candidates appointed after 31 December 2003 against vacancies arising on or after 1 January 2004.

¶ 2.5, 4.6, 7.3

The Office Memorandum dated 31 March 2021 extended the time limits for exercising the option and deciding representations.

¶ 2.7, 7.3

The Tribunal also considered the Delhi High Court decisions in Parmanand Yadav v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 3834/2013, decided 12 February 2015, and W.P. (C) No. 2810/2016, decided 27 March 2017, holding that their applicability had to be assessed in the context of the applicants’ facts and the later Government instructions.

¶ 7.8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Tribunal held that neither the date of selection nor the date of joining, viewed alone, determined pension eligibility; the claim had to be assessed against the conditions in the 2020 Office Memorandum, including the vacancy against which appointment was made.

¶ 7.4–7.5

The 2003 approved-candidates memorandum and the later training and allotment documents were relevant, but the rejection did not satisfactorily resolve the vacancy-year issue or demonstrate a reasoned examination of the recruitment records and applicable instructions.

¶ 7.5–7.7

The Tribunal further found that the respondents had not placed material establishing that the appointment was against a vacancy arising after 1 January 2004, and required consideration of the cited precedents.

¶ 7.8, 7.11