$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 27.08.2024 + W.P.(C) 13037/2023 & CM APPL. 51502/2023 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. Amit Sinha and Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advocate versus VISHVAMBHAR SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

W.P.(C) 13037/2023 & CM APPL. 51502/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs:

“(i) Allow the present petition filed by the Petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) Quash the impugned order/judgement dated 31.10.2022 in OA No. 199/2021 (Annexure-P-1) (Impugned) titled "Vishvambhar Singh Vs UOI & Ors."”

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition mainly on the following grounds:

W.P.(C) 13037/2023 Page 1 of 25 pages Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed “(iii) Because the Ld. Tribunal has proceeded to decide the issue based on presumption and assumption and ignoring the submissions on behalf of the petitioners herein in the reply and even noted in para 3 of the impugned judgement. It is further submitted that the reference to the policy of regularization framed by the DOP&T called "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993" is irrelevant and extraneous in as much as neither the same has been part of the pleadings or argument on behalf of the parties and further that even para 3 thereof the OM specifically mentions that the same is not applicable in the case of Railways, Department of Telecommunications and Department of Post, who already have their own scheme. .V (iv) Because the Id. Tribunal failed to consider that pension can be claimed and granted only in terms of the rule or policy of the Government and in the instant case, there is no policy or rule to consider portion of service rendered as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (BDDA) for grant of pension in terms of the rules called "Post and Telegraph Extra Departmental (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964", amended vide Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001 which was further amended vide the rules called "Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011" and further amended vide "Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020".

(v) Because the respondent herein was not holder of a Civil post prior to his appointment as Postman on 10.1.2004 and in his case, he would be eligible and entitled for the NPS scheme, as made applicable to the employees who join Government service after 1.1.2004 and that prior to that he was neither employed as Daily rated casual worker against a permanent post and his status was just as a part-time worker as EDDA, specifically engaged in terms of the rule mentioned above.

(vi) Because otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has authoritatively held that the part-time worker can neither claim regularization nor parity with the regular employee. Refer: -

(a) State of Tamil Nadu Vs A. Singamuthu", reported as (2017) 4 see 113; and W.P.(C) 13037/2023 Page 2 of 25 pages Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed (b) Union of Inia & Ors Vs Ilmo Devi & Anr", reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 899.

(vii) Because the judgement, referred to and relied upon by the Id. Tribunal below, is neither relevant nor a binding precedent in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(viii) Because implementation of the judgement is impossibility In law in as much as the petitioners are being required to act contrary to the rules and policy including the declaration of law by the Hon'ble Courts, including this Hon'ble Court.

(ix) Because even otherwise the respondent herein has just completed less than 8 years of service as a Postman which could be the pensionable job, excluding his engagement as EDDA prior to his a