Service rendered as a Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS) is part-time and governed by distinct rules, and therefore cannot be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of granting pension upon appointment to a regular post in the Postal Department.

ORAL ORDER

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

In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

"to direct the Respondents to disburse the pension due to the Applicant and to include the service rendered by the Applicant for the period of 10.06.1978 to 14.09.2009 as GDS Official in the Department of Posts, while calculating the total service period of the Applicant with the Department of Posts and award Pension accordingly and pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and render justice”

2. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The Applicant served as a Grameen Dak Sevak (GDS) with the Department of Posts from 10.06.1978 and was promoted to the cadre of Postman in 2009 under the 25% seniority quota, wherein her prior GDS service was reckoned for eligibility to appear in the departmental examination. She rendered more than 20 years of dedicated service as a GDS and thereafter continued to serve satisfactorily as a Postwoman until her superannuation on 31.04.2020. The Applicant has not been sanctioned or paid any pensionary benefits to date, even after submitting a formal representation on 09.02.2021 seeking release of the same. Hence this OA.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue is no longer res integra and is covered by the Judgment dated 31.10.2025 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 3569/2017 and connected cases, and accordingly prayed for the dismissal of the OA.

4. When the same was put forth before the learned counsel for the applicant, he reiterated the grounds raised in the OA and could not convert the same.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials placed on record and scrutinised the whole conspectus of the case.

6. We find that the issue in the present OA is no more res integra and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 3569/2017 and batch has passed the order which is reproduced below:

“27. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

28. In Gandiba Behera (supra), the Supreme Court considered a similar dispute as to whether the services rendered by the employees in the postal department in the capacity of the GDSs ought to be considered or not for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for pension after their selection to regular posts in the said department. The Supreme Court considered the Judgments of P.K. Rajamma (supra), Vinod Kumar Saxena (supra), Union of India & Ors. v. Registrar, (2021) 14 SCC 803, D.S. Nakara (supra), and particularly, Clause 6 of the Rules of 2011, and held as under:

"18. The respondents have also referred to Clause 6 of the 2011 Rules which stipulates:

"The Sevaks shall not be entitled to any pension. However, they shall be entitled to ex gratia gratuity or any other payment as may be decided by the Government from time to time."

19. This particular Rule, making service of this category of employees non-pensionable, however, has been struck down as unconstitutional by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi by a decision delivered on 17-11-2016. We are apprised in course of hearing of these appeals by the learned counsel for the Central Government that the said decision of the Tribunal has been challenged before the Delhi High Court by the Union of India by way of a writ petition, registered as WP (C) No. 832 of 2018. We are also informed that no effective order has as yet been passed by the Delhi High Court in the said writ petition. In the judgment giving rise to Civil Appeal No. 109-110 of 2017, a similar provision of the 1964 Rules, being Clause 4 thereof has also been invalidated by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Though the fact that the service of GDS was not pensionable was one of the factors considered by this Court in