G.EASWARACHANDRA VIDYA SAGAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Original Petitions from different orders in Original Applications, one by the sole applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the others by the Union of India raise a question which is no more res integra. All the applicants were persons who were appointed after 1.1.2004 when the New Pension Scheme came into force. They claimed that they were working as GDS prior to that for long years and that their appointments to the regular service were delayed only for reason of administrative lapses. Selection was notified earlier, but examinations were delayed and the appointments were after 1.1.2004, to the vacancies which arose prior to that.

(2.) The applicants claimed that they should be granted notional benefits from the date of arising of vacancies. The notification was on 5.1.2003 and the examinations were scheduled on 28.3.2004, for the vacancies which occurred prior to 2002. The notional promotion is also claimed for the purpose of having the minimum qualifying service as also for being included in the earlier pension scheme. The question stands answered by a Division Bench of this Court relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In OP(CAT) No.58 of 2017 (judgment dated 13.3.2017) a similar question arose. The Division Bench relying on Y.Najithamol & others v. Soumya S.D (2016)9 SCC 352 declined the prayer. In Najithamol's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment from Gramin Dak Sevak(GDS) to the post of Postmen is by Direct Recruitment. The Division Bench of this Court held that there could be no reckoning of prior service as GDS nor a retrospective notional effect of appointment given from the date on which the vacancy arose.

(3.) The decision of the Division Bench of this Court in OP(CAT) No.58 of 2017 was again relied on in OP(CAT) No.85 of 2016. We do not find any reason to sustain the orders of the Tribunal; in the teeth of the above precedents. We allow OP(CAT) No.106/2014, OP(CAT) No.41/2015 and OP(CAT) No.88/2019 setting aside the impugned orders and rejecting the O.A's. . We also reject OP (CAT) No.191/2014.