Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1929
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. JUSTICE K. HARIPAL, J
N K Mathai – Appellant
Versus
Department Of Posts – Respondent
O.A./167/2024
Mr. Shafik M Abdulkhadir, Ms.Girija P., Ms. Mariyam Suhana Luqman, Ms. Al Hena Safeer, Mr. Ashok Suresh, ACGSC
The Tribunal emphasized that pension claims under Rule 88 must be considered individually, rejecting generalized assessments that disregard specific circumstances.
Headnote:(A) CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 88 - Pension entitlement - Applicant, a former Postman, retired with a shortfall of 5 months for minimum pension eligibility - High Court directed consideration under Rule 88, but respondents failed to comply, leading to the applicant's appeal - The Tribunal found that the respondents did not honor the High Court's directions and generalized the applicant's claim, disregarding individual circumstances. (Paras 1, 12, 16, 19)
(B) Administrative delays - The applicant argued that delays in promotion caused undue hardship, impacting his pension eligibility - The Tribunal emphasized the need for individual consideration of claims under Rule 88, rejecting the respondents' blanket approach. (Paras 3, 15, 18)
Facts of the case:
The applicant served as a Postman from 2003 to 2012, with prior service as an Extra-departmental agent since 1979. He claimed pension benefits under Rule 88 due to a shortfall of 5 months in qualifying service.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal quashed the respondents' order and directed them to reconsider the applicant's claim under Rule 88, emphasizing the need for individual assessment.
Issues: The main issues included whether the respondents complied with the High Court's directions and the appropriateness of the generalized approach to the applicant's claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal ruled that the respondents failed to comply with the High Court's specific directions and that individual circumstances must be considered in pension claims under Rule 88.
Result: Original Application allowed.
ORDER
Applicant is a former Postman who retired from service on superannuation on 31.10.2012. He had started his career as a Extra- departmental agent in the Department of Posts on 18.01.1979. He was promoted as Postman on 19.03.2003. After serving the department as permanent Postman for nearly 9 years and 7 months he retired on superannuation on 31.10.2012. The grievance of the applicant is that since his service fell short of a few months he missed the fortune of getting minimum pension. Then he made representations before the respondents for granting him pension giving relaxation under Rule 88 of CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972, Rules for short, which was not considered. Thus he moved O.A.1200/2013 before this Tribunal, which was allowed. That order was challenged in OP(CAT) 56/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court. The High Court allowed the OP on the basis of the decision in Union of India and others v. Gandiba Behera [[ 2019 (4) KLT 3022 ] However, the High Court had directed the respondents to consider whether benefit under Rule 88 of the Rules can be extended to the applicant. In compliance with the said direction, Annexure-A1 was passed by the 2nd respondent on 26.03.2021 rejecting the claim. Up to this point there is no dispute on the facts of the case.
2. Aggrieved by the Annexure-A1 order in purported compliance of Annexure-A7 order of the High Court the applicant has approached this Tribunal for quashing the same and for a declaration that he is entitled to get pension extending the benefit of Annexure-A3 order, to direct the 1st respondent to grant relaxation to the applicant under Rule 88 of the Rules and to grant him pension from 01.11.2012.
3. According to the applicant, he was entitled to be promoted as Group-D and Postman from 1998, the respondents did not permit him to take part in the selection process conducted during 1995-2003. During the period many of his juniors were promoted. That means, he had lost valuable years of service. If he was granted promotion at the appropriate time, his present struggle for reckoning five months would have been avoided and he would have become entitled to get minimum pension.
That has caused him undue hardships.
4. Referring to an order of the Madras Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.1264/2001 he said that direction was issued in formulating a scheme for reckoning the past service and giving weightage for certain percentage of service rendered as ED agent. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court have upheld the direction and the benefits were given to the applicants therein.
5. Referring to Annexure-A3 Common order of this Tribunal in O.A.666/2010 etc. he said that similarly placed employees who had fallen short of for more than two years of service were granted the benefit relaxation. On the strength of Annexure-A3 he made representations which were not considered and that prompted him to approach this Tribunal moving O.A.1200/2013. Through Annexure-A6 order, that O.A.was allowed. However, the High Court reversed the same with directions to the respondents to consider and grant him benefit under Rule 88 of the Rules. But Annexure-A1 has been passed without complying with the directions.
6. The respondents filed reply statement justifying the Annexure-A1 order and disputing the claims of the applicant. According to them, directions, both in Gandiba Behera, quoted supra, issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in Annexure-A7 order, have been complied with. According to them, Annexure-A1 has been passed based on Annexure-R1 communication issued by the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications dated 08.03.2021. According to them, the applicant is re-agitating the very same dispute and the O.A. is barred by the doctrine of res-judicata. Referring to Annexures-R1 and R2 they submitted that the case of the applicant was examined as directed by the High Court and he is not entitled to get further relaxation under Rule 88 of the Rules. So, they have prayed fo
