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

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

AND HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)

S. Vijayakumar, S/o Sambabba Gounder, No.3/80, Thadagam Puthur, Thadagam. .. Applicant By Advocate M/s. RamaswamyRajarajan Vs.

1. Union of India rep by The Postmaster General, Western Region, Coimbatore.

2. The Superintendent of Post offices, Thirupur Division, Thirupur.

3. The Assistant Superintendent, Mettupalayam, Mettupalayam. .. Respondents By Advocate Mr. S. Nagarajan

ORAL ORDER

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

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“To quash the impugned order both numbers as NO.B3/GDS Resignation, dated 17.102018 &

nd

08.11.2018, passed by the 2 respondent, consequently to direct the respondent to treat discharge form service of the applicant as approved voluntary discharge from service with effect 26.10.2018 and to grant all service discharge benefits along with reasonable interest and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case with cost”

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicant was appointed as an Extra Departmental (ED) Agent (GDS) in 1989 and served for 30 years. Due to ill health, he submitted a request to the 2nd respondent seeking Voluntary Retirement. However, without informing him of the applicable rules regarding Voluntary Retirement for GDS employees, the respondents issued an order treating his request as a resignation and accepted it. The Applicant clarified that he had only sought Voluntary retiremet not resignation, and submitted a representation to that effect. Despite this, he was relieved from service while his representation was still pending. Later, the 2nd respondent stated there is no Voluntary Retirement Scheme for GDS employees. Aggrieved by this decision, the Applicant has filed the present Original Application.

3. The learned counsel for the applicant primarily contended that the applicant had submitted a request to the 2nd respondent seeking voluntary retirement on health grounds after completing 30 years of service, with the expectation of receiving discharge benefits. However, instead of informing him that there is no provision for voluntary retirement under the applicable rules for Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS), the respondents treated his request as a resignation and relieved him from service with immediate effect on 26.10.2018. He further argued that only after the applicant had been discharged from service ,the 2nd respondent issued the impugned order dated 08.11.2018, stating that no voluntary retirement scheme exists for GDS employees. Therefore, he asserted that the actions of the 2nd and 3rd respondents were arbitrary and contrary to the applicable rules and regulations.

4. The counsel also referred to Rule 6(1) and 6(4), along with paragraph 18.48.19 of the recommendations concerning the payment of gratuity to GDS employees. He pointed out that, according to clause (a) of the said paragraph, a GDS must have completed a minimum of 10 years of continuous and satisfactory service at the time of discharge, either upon reaching the age of 65 years or at an earlier age in cases of approved voluntary discharge. He also emphasized clause (d), which specifies that the GDS should not have resigned from service.

5. He further argued that the applicant, serving as a Branch Postmaster, had submitted a valid request for voluntary discharge, which the 2nd respondent, as the controlling authority, should have approved. The respondent was also obligated to grant the applicant all service-related benefits for his 30 years of service. Instead, the applicant was arbitrarily removed from service without any benefits, an action that, he contended, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

6. He drew our attention to the judgment dated 19.04