Summary
Postal employees whose regular service fell short of the pension threshold sought to add earlier service as Gramin Dak Sevaks or other extra-departmental agents. The Court held that the distinct part-time service could not be combined without a legal provision. It protected pension orders already issued and provided for consideration of relaxation in other cases of hardship.
Issues
- Whether prior GDS service can supplement the minimum qualifying regular service for pension.
- Whether rounding under Rule 49(3), retrospective appointment or relaxation could address the shortfall.
Provisions considered
- Rules 49(3) and 88, Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972Rejected repeated rounding of service fractions and recognised executive power, with the prescribed concurrence, to relax requirements for undue hardship. (¶¶ 17, 18, 21)
- Rule 6, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011Noted the non-pension provision and the separate pending challenge; the present controversy concerned combining GDS and regular service. (¶ 14)
Held
- Holding a civil post as a GDS does not make its part-time service continuous with later regular employment governed by different rules. No rule or applicable circular authorised adding GDS service to qualifying regular service; the circular for full-time casual employees did not apply. (¶¶ 15, 16, 19, 20)
- Selection to a regular post cannot be backdated merely because authorities delayed the selection process, absent a specific legal provision. (¶ 15)
- Rule 49(3) gives a single rounding benefit for the relevant fractional year; it does not permit two half-year additions within the same year as argued by the employees. (¶ 17)
- Relaxation under Rule 88 belongs to the executive. Cases meeting its undue-hardship requirements deserve consideration even if numerous; pension orders already issued must remain undisturbed. Other employees’ cases may be considered for relaxation of the qualifying-service requirement. (¶¶ 18, 19, 21)
Result
Appeals allowed and impugned judgments set aside, subject to protection of pension orders already issued and consideration of Rule 88 relaxation for other respondents. Interim orders dissolved; connected applications disposed of. No costs. Four petitions with incomplete service were de-tagged for listing after service.