Uninterrupted officiating service qualifies for pension under Rule 13 of the 1972 Rules, despite being intermittent.

The present O.P.(CAT) is directed against the judgment dated 03.04.2023 in O.A.No.907 of 2017, whereby the claim of the petitioner - applicant for treating his period of officiating/adhoc service in the post of postman with effect from 01.10.2002 to 08.08.2007 and thereafter till 17.07.2010, for consideration for the purpose of pension, has been rejected.

2. Succinctly the facts in brief for adjudication of the lis are as follows:

While working as a Gramin Dak Sevak (hereinafter called ‘GDS’, for short) the applicant – petitioner was ordered to officiate as postman at Kanhirapuzha Branch against the regular vacancy during the period from 30.09.2002 to 17.07.2010 and thereafter, at different post offices. This fact is evident from the information received under the RTI Annexure A2 as well as from the first and second additional reply statements, which we will be extracting in the later part of the judgment. However, vide order Annexure A6 on 22.07.2010 was appointed as Group D against the post of postman with effect from 09.08.2007 with the clarification that the period of notional service shall count only for the purpose of pension. A representation Annexure A7 was submitted by the petitioner for counting of Ad-hoc arrangement rendered as officating postman in the vacant post for the purpose of pension, which was rejected vide Annexure A8 dated 24.11.2016. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below:

“Sub: Counting of Ad-hoc arrangement rendered as officiating Postman for consideration of pension – reg.

Ref: Your representation dated 02.08.2016.

This has reference to your representation dated 02.08.2016 requesting to count the ad-hoc service rendered as Postman in different spells for the purpose of pension. This is to inform you that the engagement as postman against leave vacancies and /or otherwise will not be counted for pension and other terminal benefits. As per records, you were appointed as MTS against the vacancy arisen after the introduction of New Pension scheme. Therefore, you are not eligible for pension an other benefits under Statutory Pension Scheme 1972.”

3. The aforementioned order was assailed before the Tribunal. Respondents in the first additional reply statement did not disclose the fact that the applicant -petitioner had worked from 30.09.2002 to 17.07.2010 but only gave the particulars of employment of 2010 i.e., from 12.04.2010 to 29.04.2010, 16.06.2010 to 19.06.2010, 24.06.2010 to 30.06.2010 and 01.07.2010 to 17.07.2010. However, in paragraph No.5 of the said statement, it has been stated that he had served against the vacant post of post man, Mannarkad from 01.10.2002 to 31.03.2010. Similar was the contention in the second additional reply in paragraph No.4 thereof.

4. Learned tribunal though noticed the aforementioned contentions/averments recorded in the additional reply, in paragraph No.11 of the judgment under challenge, but, while giving the findings in the penultimate paragraph and in between found that the service of the applicant – petitioner as postman, while working as GDS, was only intermittent and rejected the case. It is in this contention this O.P.(CAT) has been filed.

5. Learned Senior counsel Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan assisted by Mr.Vishnudas H., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - applicant submitted that the relevant point of time the applicant-petitioner officiated as postman in Mannarkad area was from 30.09.2002 to 17.07.2010. Chapter III Rule 13 of the Central Civil Service (Pension)

Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1972 Rules’, for short), dealing with qualifying services were applicable, which came to be repealed only in 2004 and as per Rule 13 the ‘qualifying service’ would mean the service rendered by an applicant in official temporary capacity without any interruption by substantive appo