Temporary working arrangements do not qualify as officiating service under pension rules, and prior service as a Gramin Dak Sevak is excluded from pension benefits.

ORDER

Applicant is a former Postman of Kallai Post Office in Kozhikode Postal division. He had commenced service as an Extra Departmental Mail Packer in Arakinar on 10.03.1981. Later, according to the applicant, on 02.08.2001, he was 'ordered to officiate as Postman at Kallai Post Office'. Applicant claims that ever since 02.08.2001 he continued to officiate as Postman in the said Post Office till he was appointed as regular Postman on 22.10.2009. Thereafter, he was sent for training for ten days and was appointed as regular Postman on 31.10.2009. He continued as such till 30.11.2019, on attaining the age of superannuation.

2. The applicant claims that he has officiated as Postman under Annexure-A2. Thereafter, he was selected as regular Postman in 2009 in the examination held for filling up 2006 vacancies. He underwent training and then was appointed as Postman on regular basis, which is evident from Annexure-A5. On attaining the age of superannuation he retired from service on 30.11.2019. He was initially paid an amount of Rs.3,46,862/- being the cash equivalent to the leave salary in lieu of 289 days of unutilised earned leave and 11 days of half pay leave at his credit. Later, an amount of Rs.13,782/- was also paid to him. Similarly, based on Annexures-A11 and A12, it is submitted that, he was paid service gratuity.

3. On 21.10.2021 he submitted Annexure-A13 representation before the 1^st respondent seeking to reckon his service from 02.08.2001 for the purpose of pension. He claimed that he had put in 18 years and three months of service and was entitled to get pension under the Old Pension Scheme, for which a request was made, which stands rejected by Annexure-A14 communication dated 18.11.2021. The cause of action for approaching the Tribunal is Annexure-A14 order rejecting his plea for pension under the Old Pension Scheme. The respondents have stated that his date of commencement of service being 31.10.2009, he is not entitled to get pension under the Old Pension Scheme, so that the request was rejected. Accordingly, the applicant has approached the Tribunal for a declaration that he is entitled to get his officiating service in the post of Postman with effect from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009 reckoned towards qualifying service for all purposes including pension and retirement benefits and the Annexure-A14 rejecting his claim for reckoning his officiating service from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009 is illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution, to set aisde Annexure-A14 and to issue appropriate direction to the respondents to reckon the period from 02.08.2001 to 22.10.2009 towards qualifying service and to grant him retiral benefits under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.

4. In support of the said plea, he has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others [ (1990) 2 SCC 715 ] and Rudra Kumar Sain and others v. Union of India and others [ (2000) 8 SCC 25 ] where it was held that even if an appointment was originated irregularly, if it had followed by regular appointment, the said irregular appointment also is liable to be reckoned for the purpose of pension, that rejecting the claim is illegal and unconstitutional.

5. The applicant has also relied on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Reghukumar v. Union of India [2021 (4