P. MUNUSAMY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS OA has been filed by one P. Munusamy under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the Respondent in No. C1/18/PM/2011 -20122 dated 07.05.2012 and quash the same and direct the Respondent to sanction regular pension to the Applicant w.e.f. 01.09.2011 by counting the Contingent Service rendered by him and grant him all consequential benefits. The background of the case is as follows:

(2.) THE Applicant joined as an Outsider in the Department of Posts on 17.12.1981. From 01.02.1982 onwards he worked as contingent Gardner and served as such for a period of more than 7 years. Thereafter he was accommodated as Postman against the leave vacancies and Group D vacancies and later appointed as Extra Departmental (ED) GDS Packer with effect from 30.07.1996 and after serving for a period of 7 years and appearing in the examination for selection to the cadre of Postman held on 27.10.2002 for the vacancies under direct recruitment quota meant for GDS, he was appointed as (regular) Postman, Nungambakkam Post Office by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City Central Division vide Memo No. B5/2 dated 13.11.2003. His date of birth being 15.08.1951, he retired from service on 31.08.2011 on his attaining the age of 60 years. His total service in Postman cadre from 13.11.2003 to 31.08.2011 worked out to 7 years, 9 months and 19 days. With reference to the provisions of Rule 50 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, service gratuity and retirement gratuity were sanctioned by the Respondent. The Applicant submitted a representation dated 28.04.2012 requesting for sanction of pension taking into account his services as contingent Gardner and outsider Substitute and thereafter as GDS. However, the Respondent gave a reply vide letter dated 07.05.2012 informing him of the ineligibility for pension as he did nor fulfill the condition of 10 years of qualifying service, as required under Rule 49 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(3.) THE Respondent in his reply has submitted that, this Tribunal has upheld in similar cases the ineligibility for pension of those who have not completed 10 years of service, e.g.,