Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 15592
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
NANU P. – Respondent
OP (CAT) 287/2017
Sri.T.V.VINU, CGC
Administrative delays do not justify deprivation of pension benefits; however, notional appointments for different service classes are not permissible.
Headnote:(A) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - The applicant, appointed as Extra Departmental Agent and later as Postman, sought inclusion in the Statutory Pension Scheme, claiming entitlement based on a notional appointment prior to the introduction of the New Pension Scheme. The Tribunal allowed the claim, emphasizing administrative delay as a factor. (Paras 2-4, 8-9)
(B) Notional Appointment - The court addressed whether Casual Labourers and Gramin Dak Sevaks can claim notional appointment from the date a vacancy arose when appointed to Group-D or C posts. The court referenced previous judgments to conclude that such claims are not justified. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was appointed in 2004 but argued he should have been appointed in 2002 to qualify for the pension scheme. The Tribunal found that administrative delays prevented timely appointment.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal directed the respondents to include the applicant under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, from the date the vacancy arose in 2002.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant could claim notional appointment from the date the vacancy arose.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that administrative delays do not justify deprivation of benefits, but notional appointments for those in different service classes are not permissible.
Result: Original petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT
K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.348/2015, Union of India and its officers preferred this OP(CAT).
2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as follows:
The applicant, Nanu P., approached the Tribunal with a prayer to include him in the Statutory Pension Scheme. He was appointed as Extra Departmental Agent/Gramin Dak Sevak- Mail Deliverer in the Postal Department from 25.08.1975. Later, he was appointed as Postman on 12.08.2004, for a vacancy which arose in the year 2002. The claim of the respondent/applicant is that, had he been appointed as Postman in the year 2002, prior to the introduction of New Pension Scheme (NPS) which was introduced with effect from 01.01.2004, he would have obtained the pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules , 1972. He submitted Annexure-A2 representation to the Department to include him in the CCS (Pension) Scheme. Since there was no positive response, the respondent/applicant knocked the doors of the Central Administered Tribunal.
3. The contention of the petitioners was that, since he was appointed on 12.08.2004, he could be included only in the New Pension Scheme (NPS) which was in force from 01.01.2004.
4. The Tribunal, noticing the rival contentions, allowed the claim of the respondent/applicant. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Tribunal are extracted hereunder:
“8. It is worth noticing that in Annexure R1(a) the Chief Postmaster General (respondent No. 2) had intimated that the recruitment process may be completed by 31.12.2003. Nevertheless, it took more than 7 months for the respondent No. 3 even to convene a DPC for promotion of the senior most GDS. The applicant is one among such persons who were selected as per Annexure RI(c) proceedings dated 19.7.2004. No reasons has been stated as to why respondent No. 3 took more than 7 months to convene a DPC though the Chief Postmaster General has issued directions to all concern that selection should be completed by 31.12.2003. Had this selection been done in terms of the directions of the Chief Postmaster General, applicant would have certainly been selected and appointed before 31.12.2003 in which event he would have come within the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. This Tribunal feels that the delay, which the respondents term as 'administrative delay' is no explanation for the deprivation of the benefit to the applicant had he been appointed before 31.12.2003 as directed by respondent No. 2. Therefore, one can very well see that applicant was not at fault and the delay and the other matters which procrastinated the process of selection are attributable only to the respondents.
9. Therefore, in the light of the precedents cited by the applicant in the OA this Tribunal feels that, interest of justice demands that applicant should be treated as having been appointed notionally from the date on which the vacancy arose for the limited purpose of availing of the pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Accordingly, this Tribunal directs the respondents to include the applicant under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 from the date on which the vacancy arose in 2002. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the pension payment order shall be issued to the applicant within such time. Ordered accordingly.”
5. The issue involved in this case is whether, Casual Labourers and Gramin Dak Sevaks who do not come in either Group-D or C posts, when appointed in Group-D or C posts, can claim notional appointment from the date when the vacancy arose?
6. The issue was pondered by this Court in OP(CAT) No.150/2017 dated 14.01.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted hereunder:
“7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book and of the view that there is force on merit. The appointment letters Annexure R3 reflects that all the applicants were a
