IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 27.02.2026 UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ...Petitioners Versus RANJEET SINGH AND ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present:- Ms. Shalini Atri, Senior Panel Counsel, for the petitioners.

*****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (ORAL)

1. In the present petition, the challenge is to the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), by which, the original application filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed, permitting him to continue in service on the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (hereinafter referred to as ‘GDSMD’), up to the age of 65 years.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that once respondent No.1 was promoted from the post of GDSMD to that of Multi Tasking Staff (for short ‘MTS’), he could not have sought reversion back to the post of GDSMD, especially when he had already worked on the post of MTS for a period of more than one year, keeping in view the instructions which were issued in the year 2021, the reversion from the post of MTS to GDSMD could be claimed within a period of one year of such promotion, which fact has been ignored by the Tribunal while granting the relief to respondent No.1.

gone through the records with her able assistance.

4. It may be noticed that respondent No.1 was promoted from the post of GDSMD to MTS in the year 2019. In the year 2020, vide letter dated 08.12.2020, he made a request that he should be reverted from the post of MTS to that of GDSMD, which request was processed and ultimately accepted vide letter dated 09.03.2021 Later on, as the said request was not being implemented, the respondent No.1 was made to retire w.e.f. 31.05.2021 at the age of 60 years by treating him while working as MTS, which action was challenged.

5. The Tribunal has rightly held that as per the instructions, with regard to the reversion from the post of MTS to GDSMD, dated 11.06.2020, there was no time frame fixed to seek reversion and therefore, merely that the application of reversion was kept pending for implementation for a quite long time despite acceptance, the benefit of reversion could not have been denied merely on account of subsequent instructions dated 08.03.2021.

6. It is a settled principle of law that the instructions governing the issue are those which are in force on the date when the relief is claimed. Concededly, on the date when respondent No.1 submitted a request for reversion on 08.12.2020, the instructions dated 08.03.2021 had not even been issued, hence, rejecting the claim of petitioner-UOI on the basis of said instructions, which came subsequent to the request, has rightly been ignored by the Tribunal so as to grant the relief to respondent No.1.

deny that the request of reversion from MTS to GDSMD had been accepted by the petitioners, though the said order was yet to be implemented. Once the request was already accepted, the implementation of the same could not have been denied merely on the issue of subsequent instructions, 8. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any interference by this Court as the order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Tribunal has not been proved to be perverse. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI )

JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI )

February 27, 2026 JUDGE harish Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No