The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of qualifying service for pension benefits under Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, based on consistent views from previous judgments.

N. Paulvasanthakumar, J.

1. Heard Shri.R.Malaichamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri.M.Devendran, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4.

2. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner to quash the common order made in O.A.No.443 of 2011 dated 17.04.2013 by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the respondents 1 to 4 to grant pension and other retirement service benefits to him.

3. The said order is challenged in this Writ Petition, by contending that the petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent/Mail Carrier (EDDA/MC) at Palakanuthu Branch Office, Dindigul on 08.08.1970 and he was promoted and appointed to the post of Postman with effect from 31.12.1998 on seniority basis and retired from service on 30.06.2008 on reaching the age of superannuation. The respondents / Department counted the pensionable service from 31.12.1998 to 30.06.2008, which comes to 9 years 6 months and 1 day. The said period being less than 10 years of qualifying service, the pension claimed by the petitioner was declined by order dated 05.08.2008 by the third respondent, confirming the order of the 4th respondent dated 12.07.2010. The said orders were challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal by contending that the petitioner having worked in an officiating capacity as Postman for 9 years, 6 months and 1 day prior to his appointment as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent from 08.08.1970, the said period can also be counted as qualifying service. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 argued that the pensionary benefits could not be extended to the petitioner as he had not rendered the minimum service of 10 years in the cadre of Postman for grant of pension as per Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Original Application. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submitted that as the petitioner has put in only 9 years, 6 months and 1 day of qualifying service, pensionary benefits could not be extended to him.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submitted that considering the ED Staff service of the petitioner from 08.08.1970 and his continuity upto 30.06.2008, the Tribunal dismissed the application by rendering that the petitioner has completed only 9 years and 9 months and not completed the qualifying service of 10 years for the purpose of sanction pension.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court made in Writ Petition No.45465 of 2002 dated 4.10.2007 (Union of India rep. by the Secretary, Dept. of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 110 001 v. M.R.Palanisamy), wherein a similar issue was raised by an E.D.Staff, who served for 29 years before his permanent absorption as Group "D" staff and he was ordered to be granted pension treating the person as completed 10 years of qualifying service, though he was having a regular service of 9 years, 3 months and 29 days, with reference to the E.D.Staff service. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.13829 of 2008 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 17.10.2008 and thereafter, the very same Department sanctioned pension to the said person, viz., M.R.Palanisamy by order dated 9.10.2009.7. Even though the order of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.45465 of 2002 dated 4.10.2007 restricted the relief only to the first respondent in the said Writ Petition, another Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.22833 of 2010 (T.Jayaraman v. The Post Master General, Central Region, T.N.Circle, Trichy and others), noticing the similar set of facts, allowed the Writ Petition by order dated 10.11.2010 noticing the earlier order, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court and which was also implemented by the Department.

8. Again, in the order dated 14.02.2013 passed by