RAMESH KUMAR T. RAMANUJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT , a postman under the respondents, was permitted to retire on invalid pension under the provisions of Rule 38 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Pension Rules'). He states that he joined the respondent -Department on 17 -7 -1980 as an ED agent and continued to work till 16 -3 -2001. On passing an examination he was selected by respondents vide Annexure -A/1 as Postman w.e.f. 17 -3 -2001. While serving as Postman, he was sent for regular medical examination. On medical examination he was declared as unfit. Instead of providing an alternative employment by creating supernumerary post, respondent No. 3 issued Annexure -A/2 communication dated 23 -4 -2010 permitting him to retire on invalid pension with immediate effect. Applicant sent Annxure -A/3 representation dated 02 -2 -2011 requesting for invalid pension. His son made a representation to the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds. The same was rejected by the respondents. Applicant's request for pension also was rejected by Annexure -A/4 letter dated 21 -12 -2010 informing that as he has not completed 10 years qualifying services on the date of retirement he is not entitled to pension. He sent Annexure -A/5, a detailed representation dated 12 -9 -2011, to respondent No. 1. Annexure -A/6 reply dated 26 -9 -2011 was received through respondent No. 3 reiterating applicant's ineligibility for pension as he has not completed 10 years of qualifying service. Again he sent Annexure -A/7 representation dated 17 -5 -2012 to the Director General of Department of Post, New Delhi pointing out the hardship he is facing. Reply dated 27 -2 -2013, marked as Annexure -A, the applicant received in response to Annexure -A/7 was again a reiteration of the earlier stand taken by the respondents. In this OA the applicant prays for the following reliefs:

(2.) A rejoinder was filed by the applicant refuting the contentions of respondents and reiterating the averments made in the O.A.

(3.) IT can be discerned from the pleadings that applicant's pleas are mainly based on two aspects viz. (i) unjustified denial of his pension and (ii) the illegality committed by respondents by permitting him to retire on invalid pension when he acquired the disability while in service. Pleadings of respondents on the other hand have been focused on the provisions of the Pension Rules highlighting the fact that applicant was permitted to retire on invalid pension under Rule 38 of Pension Rules and that he had no qualifying service because he had less than 10 years of service as Postman.