(Reserved on 24.11.2025)

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad This the _05^th day of _January, 2026 HON’BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER-J.

HON’BLE MR. ANJANI NANDAN SHARAN, MEMBER-A.

Original Application No. 1294 of 2011 (U/S 19, Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985)

Hari Raj Singh aged about 57 S/o Late Ram Prasad Singh, R/o Gahalod House, Shivaji Nagar Bijnore Posted as Office Assistant in the Office of Superintendent Post Offices Bijnor, (U.P.).

……….. Applicant.

By Advocate: Mr. R.K. Dixit.

Versus

1. Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Post, Ministry of Communication, Dak Bhawan Sanshad Marg, New Delhi.

2. Post Master General Bareilly, Region Bareilly.

3. Director Postal Services, Bareilly, Region Bareilly.

4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Moradabad Division, Moradabad.

5. Superintendent of Post Offices Bijnor Division, Bijnor.

……….. Respondents By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Ojha.

Order By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (Judicial)

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 09.09.2011 and issuance of directions for counting of his past military service rendered from 05.12.1975 to 12.06.1983 towards qualifying service for civil pension, fixation of pay on re-employment w.e.f. 13.06.1983, and grant of consequential pensionary and other benefits after his retirement on 31.07.2013.The applicant seeks the following reliefs:-

“1. To consider for issuing orders or directions, in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 09.09.2011 (Annex. A-1).

2. To consider for issuing orders or directions, in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider for counting the military service (05.12.1975 to 12.06.1983) and fixing the pay on re- employment on 13.06.1983 with consequential benefits till date including pensionary benefits after retirement from 31.07.2013 as per mandatory provisions of Rule. (Annex. A-2).

3. To consider any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. To award the cost of the application throughout.”

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was recruited in the Defence Services on 05.12.1975 and retired on 17.09.1982 after rendering 6 years and 9 months of military service. He was thereafter re-employed as Postal Assistant in Moradabad Division on 13.06.1983 and later transferred to Bijnor Division under Rule 38. It is stated that the applicant had exercised option for counting of his past military service at the time of re-employment and was always ready to refund the gratuity amount received from Defence authorities. However, his claim was rejected by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Bijnor, vide order dated 09.09.2011 on the ground of delay. The applicant contends that the rejection is arbitrary and contrary to Rule 19(2)(a) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, as the appointing authority failed to obtain the option memo at the time of confirmation. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed this Original Application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, being an Ex-Serviceman, had rendered 6 years and 9 months of military service from 05.12.1975 to 17.09.1982 and was thereafter re-employed as Postal Assistant on 13.06.1983. It was urged that under Rule 19(2)(a) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the appointing authority was bound to obtain the option memo at the time of confirmation, but the same was not done, and despite the applicant having exercised the option within time and being ready to refund the gratuity amount of Rs. 3,999/- received from Defence authorities, his claim was arbitrarily rejected by order dated 09.09.2011. Counsel emphasized that the lapse was attributable to the respondents, not to the applicant, and that denial of counting of military service for pay fixation and pensionary benefits is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the mandatory provision