O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

This writ petition has been instituted challenging the order dated

19.07.2016, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, in O.A.No.1108 of 2014.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Extra Department Packer (EDP) at Sivakasi Coronation Colony Sub Post Office from 30.12.1972. He served as such upto 12.12.1993. Thereafter, he was absorbed / appointed as Ground-D employee and posted in Sayalkudi Sub Post Office on regular basis on 13.12.1993. He was allowed to retire from service on 30.09.2000. The claim of the petitioner is that he served as Extra Department Packer for 20 years 11 months and 14 days continuously and served as regular employee for 6 years nine months and 19 days and therefore, the period of temporary service rendered by him in the post of Extra Department Packer is to be reckoned for the purpose of calculating the qualifying period of service for grant pension under the Central Pension Rules.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that several such similarly placed persons were granted the benefit of counting 50% of the period of temporary service rendered in the post of Extra Department Packer and therefore, the petitioner is also entitled for the similar benefit.

4. The Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated

06.06.2018 in W.P.(MD) No.10677 of 2016 [P.Subbiah vs. The Superintendent of Post, Department of Posts India, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli and others] is relied upon by the petitioner with reference to the Office Memorandum issued in the year 1991. The relevant portion of the said Judgment, which refers to the Office Memorandum of the year 1991, is as follows:

“5.The issues raised in this O.A. are similar to the issues raised in O.A.No.1264/2001. It is pertinent to quote the findings of this Tribunal in its order dated 18.04.2002, which is as under:

“Here, we would like to invite a reference to the OM dated 12.04.1991 issued by the DOPT with regard to regularization of casual labourers are concerned. In the said scheme, there is a clause stating that 50% of the service rendered as temporary status employee will be reckoned as a qualifying service for regulating the retiral benefits, after regularization against Gr. D posts. This provision is on similar lines prevailing in the Railways an other Govt. of India departments. In a nutshell, the essence is that even in respect of casual labourers who got regularized at a subsequent dated against regular Gr. D posts, a portion of their service rendered with temporary status is reckoned as qualifying service for regulating the retiral benefits.

5. However, we find that the above cited Judgment is relating to the full time temporary employee. But, the petitioner in the present writ petition was working as a part time Extra Department Packer and therefore, the said Judgment is of no avail to the petitioner.

6. In the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal has also made a finding that the petitioner being only a part time employee worked for few hours per day and therefore, he was not a full time temporary employee.

7. That apart, in respect of the part time Extra Department Packer employees, the Honourable Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and others vs. The Registrar and another, by order dated 24.11.2015 in Civil Appeal Nos.13675-13676 of 2015, has considered the issues and the relevant portion of the said order reads as follows:

7. The appellant-Union of India has filed an additional affidavit on 26.10.2015 stating inter alia that the Extra Departmental Agents covered by the DOP&T Circular, 1991, are full time casual employees, whereas the second respondent is a part time casual employee and under the Rules governing his service framed in the year 1964 and amended in the years 2001 and 2011, employees like the respondent no. 2 are required to render between three to five hours of service every day. At the time of their appointment t