Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner review applicant and Sri Uday Veer Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India.

2. The petitioner by means of present writ petition has challenged the final order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "the CAT"), dated 3rd February, 2006, passed in Original Application No. 411 of 2004, whereby his claim for pension has been rejected.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster at Bankashi Post Office, Bahraich on 27/02/1962. In pursuance to notification issued on 14/10/1991, for filling up the vacancy of group “D” by promotion, the petitioner was promoted on 18/01/1995 and joined the Group “D” post on 2/02/1995. The petitioner has vehemently submitted that despite the fact that the notification for vacancy was issued in the year 1991, it was due to the lapse on the part of the respondents that they promoted the petitioner after a gap of more than 4 years.

4. It is next submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he retired from service on 28/02/2004 after attaining the age of superannuation i.e 60 years. Prior to his retirement the petitioner had submitted all the necessary documents along with joint photograph in triplicate for the purpose of pension, in the year 2003, but by means of the order dated 05/08/2004, which was challenged by the petitioner before the CAT, the petitioner was informed that he is not entitled to get pension or pensionary benefit as the petitioner had served for only 9 years and days on the Group “D” post, which is less than 10 years, for entitlement to pension.

5. The CAT by means of order dated 02/02/2006 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that services rendered by him as Extra Departmental Employee was non-pensionary, under Rule 49 of The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the CCS Rules, 1972"), 10 years qualifying service is must for entitling a Government Servant for pension, and that the case of the applicant/petitioner was also not covered by the proviso for relaxation of 10 years of qualifying service.

6. That before us, the petitioner contended that the order of the CAT is perverse and arbitrary as the same has been passed without considering the factual aspects of the controversy, without applying the law correctly while denying the pensionary benefit to the petitioner. He has submitted that the proceedings for promotion were initiated on 14/10/1991, when the notification was issued and the vacancies were notified, but it took the respondents four years' to issue the promotion order to the petitioner on 18/01/1995. The petitioner contends that had the promotion order been issued in time, he would have fulfilled the statutory requirement of rendering qualifying service of 10 years as required for the purpose of pension, and he has been denied the benefit, because his service fell short by few months. The counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that petitioner has rendered 42 years of service in the Department including 9 years and 14 days as regular employee on the post of Group “D”. It has further been submitted that the services rendered by the petitioner as "Extra Departmental Agent" should be included while counting the qualifying service for grant of retiral benefits.

7. In support of his contention the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of Nanak Chand vs Union of India - Original Application No. 175-HP of 2008 (decided on 06/02/2009) by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Chandigarh), Mohd Shafiquzzaman vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others - Original Application No. 307 of 2007 with M.A. No. 449 of 2008 (decided on 18/03/2009) by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Hyderabad), Union of India And Others vs Lal Das - CWP No. 3641 of 2009 decided by the High Court of Hi