CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated this the 25^th day of November, Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)

AND HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)

N.R. Gopalakrishnan, S/o K.K. Rajamanika Pillai, No.28C, Perumal Koil Street, Narayanampalam Village & Post, Kolappalur .. Applicant By Advocate Mr. B. Sundarapandiyan Vs

1. Union of India rep by The Secretary Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai, Chennai.

3. The Superintendent of Posts, Tiruvannamalai Division Tiruvannamalai.

4. The Postmaster, Arani Head Post Office, Tiruvannamalai District.

5. The Sub Postmaster, Vandavasi Sub Post Office, Tiruvannamalai District .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the rejection of his request for considering him under Old Pension Scheme by the impugned order, dated 12.02.2024, the applicant has filed the OA for quashing of the said order and direct the respondents to bring him under Old Pension Scheme.

2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:

The applicant was appointed on 09.02.1996 as an Extra Departmental Agent (now Gramin Dak Sevak/Branch Postmaster) at the Narayanamangalam Branch Post Office. The Department of Posts conducted Postman examinations in 2001, 2002, and 2003, all of which the applicant successfully cleared. However, despite qualifying, he was not appointed as Postman during those years. Eventually, on 09.09.2005, he was promoted as Leave Reliever Postman and posted at Polur Sub Division. Later, through proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent in Memo No. B4/2-10 dated 26.06.2012, he was promoted as Postal Assistant at Pernamallur Sub Office. In 2014, the applicant, along with one Pannerselvam and others, filed OA No. 1756/2014 before this Tribunal seeking a change of pension scheme. The OA was disposed of on

13.01.2017. Subsequently, through an RTI application, the applicant learned that 9 posts were vacant in 2003 and 7 posts were vacant in 2004, yet he was appointed only in 2005. Claiming that the delayed appointment resulted in his inclusion under the New Pension Scheme, he submitted a representation dated 10.02.2024 to respondents 1 to 3 requesting coverage under the Old Pension Scheme. The 3rd respondent, however, rejected his request through the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, leading to the present OA.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that although the applicant had passed the Postman examinations in 2001, 2002, and 2003, he was not appointed for reasons known only to the respondents. The applicant later discovered through RTI that vacancies indeed existed in 2003 (9 posts) and 2004 (7 posts), yet his appointment was delayed until

2005. As a result, he was placed under the New Pension Scheme.

4. Counsel further argues that the impugned order wrongly states that the applicant was recruited for unfilled departmental quota vacancies of 2003–2004, with the recruitment process commencing only after 01.01.2004 (specifically on 04.02.2005). According to the applicant, he should have been appointed based on the examinations conducted in 2002 and 2003. Had the respondents appointed him in those years, he would have automatically fallen under the Old Pension Scheme. The delayed appointment, allegedly deliberate, deprived him of this entitlement. The applicant therefore seeks the relief prayed for in the OA.

5. In response, learned counsel for the respondents strongly disputes the applicant’s claims and relies on the reply statement. He submits that the applicant was selected only against unfilled vacancies of 2003 and 2004, not against actual vacancies, and that the applicant has misunderstood the RTI information regarding 16 posts.

6. It is further submitted that the relevant examination was conducted on 12.06.2005 pursuant to instructions issued on 21.02.2005. The appl