SUDHANSHU KUMAR vs DEPTT OF POSTS on 2 November 2026

O R D E R

[Per: Kumar Rajesh Chandra, member(A) This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- “(i) That the claim of applicants to place them under Old Pension Scheme for coverage under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.

(ii) The respondent authorities may be directed to allow the applicants this coverage under CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 with all consequential benefits in terms of one recent matter decided on 19 December 2022 by Hon’ble CAT, Jabalpur Bench as contained in Annexure-A/6.

(iii) Any other relief/reliefs as the applicants are entitled and Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.”

2. For the sake of clarity, the brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicants in the O.A., is being discussed and delineated as under:- 2.1 The applicants were appointed as Postmen against the vacancies pertaining to the recruitment years 2003–2004, although the vacancies were advertised / notified subsequently in the year 2006 vide communication dated 30.05.2006 issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Saran Division, Chapra (Annexure A/1).

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

‐3‐ OA/050/00248/2023

2.2 It is the contention of the applicants that, notwithstanding their appointment against vacancies pertaining to the period prior to the introduction of the National Pension System (NPS), they were erroneously brought under the NPS instead of being covered under the provisions of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. They submit that they have been pursuing the matter before the departmental authorities since their appointment, but no favourable decision has been taken. 2.3 The applicants have further referred to the Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, Government of India, providing for a one-time option for coverage under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, in place of the National Pension System, in specified circumstances. They have also placed reliance upon the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2021 issued by the said Department and the Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2021 issued by the Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. 2.4 According to the applicants, the aforesaid communications indicate the Government's consideration of cases where recruitment was initiated against vacancies arising prior to 01.01.2004, but the selection and appointment process was completed subsequently. The applicants contend that they cannot be made to suffer on account of administrative delay in completion of the recruitment process. 2.5 The applicants submitted representations dated 22.05.2022 (Annexure A/5 series) before the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Saran Division, Chapra, requesting coverage under the Old Pension Scheme instead of NPS. However, their representations have not been considered, which has compelled them to approach this Tribunal. 2.6 The applicants have also relied upon the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, in O.A. No. 200/00201/2018, in support of their claim.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

‐4‐ OA/050/00248/2023

3. The respondents have contested the Original Application by filing a written statement. Their principal contention is that the applicants were appointed to the post of Postman on 22.06.2006 against the vacancies pertaining to the recruitment years 2003–2004, pursuant to the selection process in which the result was declared vide memorandum dated 26.05.2006. 3.1 The respondents have further submitted that the National Pension System (NPS) came into effect from 01.01.2004 and was made applicable to Central Government employees joining service on or after the said date. Since the applicants joined the post of Postman on 22.06.2006, they were rightly covered under NPS. 3.2 With regard to the Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020 issued by the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, the respondents have contended that the benefit contemplated therein is available to candidates whose recruitment results were declared before 01.01.2004 against vacancies occurring on or before 31.12.2003. Since the result in the applicants' case was declared only in May 2006, the said Office Memorandum is not applicable to them. 3.3 The respondents have further submitted that the subsequent Office Memorandum dated 31.03.2021 merely extended the time limit prescribed under the earlier Office Memorandum dated 17.02.2020. They have also contended that the Office Memorandum dated 09.08.2021 issued by the Department of Financial Services does not confer any independent right upon the applicants. 3.4 The respondents have additionally disputed the applicability of the judgment of the CAT, Jabalpur Bench, relied upon by the applicants, on the ground that the recruitment process in the present case was initiated after 01.01.2004. On these grounds, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

4. No rejoinder has been filed by the applicants to controvert the submissions made by the respondents in their written statement.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

‐5‐ OA/050/00248/2023

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties; and perused the pleadings, documents and other materials available on record.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance upon the common order dated 14.01.2025 passed by this Bench in O.A. No. 050/00947/2022 and O.A. No. 050/00948/2022. It was submitted that the issues involved in the present Original Application are substantially similar to those adjudicated in the aforesaid matters, wherein this Tribunal had directed the respondents to extend the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme to the applicants therein and to regulate their pensionary benefits accordingly.

Learned counsel further brought to the notice of this Tribunal the judgment dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 14291 of 2025 and C.W.J.C. No. 14268 of 2025, whereby the writ petitions preferred by the Union of India and other departmental authorities challenging the aforesaid orders of this Tribunal were dismissed. The submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions and, therefore, the applicants are also entitled to similar relief.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the materials available on record. I have considered the matter in its entirety and arrive at the following conclusion:

(i) The applicants were appointed to the post of Postman on 22.06.2006 through the LDCE examination held on 31.07.2005 against the vacancies pertaining to the recruitment years 2003–2004.

(ii) The respondents have primarily denied the applicants' claim on the ground that their selection results were declared in May 2006 and they joined the post of Postman on 22.06.2006, i.e., after the introduction of NPS with effect from 01.01.2004.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

‐6‐ OA/050/00248/2023

(iii) The applicants, on the other hand, have asserted that their appointments were made against vacancies pertaining to the years 2003–2004 and that the delay in completion of the recruitment process was attributable to the departmental authorities.

8. At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Uma Kant Jha, C.W.J.C. No. 17285 of 2018, which has been relied upon by this Tribunal while deciding O.A. No. 050/00947/2022 and O.A. No. 050/00948/2022.

9. It is pertinent to mention that the orders dated 14.01.2025 passed by this Tribunal in the aforesaid Original Applications were challenged by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 14291 of 2025 and C.W.J.C. No. 14268 of 2025. The Hon’ble High Court, vide its order dated 25.11.2025, dismissed the writ petitions of the Postal Department and upheld the orders passed by this Tribunal.

10. For proper appreciation of the issue involved, it would be appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 9 to 11 of the aforesaid judgment dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court, which read as follows: “9. This Court has put a query to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners as to whether the case of the respondents is distinguishable from the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Uma Kant Jha (supra), to which the answer is that there is no difference and the present cases are fully covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Uma Kant Jha (supra).

10. Now, coming back to the present case, we find that the pension scheme which was made effective from 01.01.2004 is applicable to the central government employees, who entered into the service of the central government after 01.01.2004, however, the employees in the present cases entered into the service of central government in the year 1974-76 although not as a regular employee but as Gramin Dak Sevak/extra departmental employee and thereafter, were promoted on 26.04.2025, after their names were recommended by the DPC

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

‐7‐ OA/050/00248/2023

against the 2003 vacancies as such their entry in central government cannot be said to be after 01.01.2004, thus they are entitled to be included in the old pension scheme and accordingly their pension/pensionary benefits are required to be fixed as per the Old Pension Scheme. This aspect of the matter stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uma Kant Jha (supra), facts and circumstances whereof are more or less identical to the present cases.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the cases, considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also taking into account the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the one rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uma Kant Jha (supra), which fully covers the present case, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment dated 14.01.2025, passed by the learned CAT in OA No.050/00947/2022 and OA No. 050/00948/2022, hence the aforesaid two writ petitions stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.”

11. The aforesaid observations of the Hon’ble High Court make it clear that, while determining entitlement to coverage under the Old Pension Scheme, the relevant consideration is not merely the date on which an employee was subsequently appointed to a regular post, but also the date of his initial entry into Government service in the capacity of a Gramin Dak Sevak/Extra Departmental Employee, subject to the facts and circumstances of the individual case.

12. In the present case, the respondents, in their written statement, have specifically stated that applicant No. 1 was initially selected and engaged as GDSBPM, Zilkabad BO, with effect from 21.09.1995 under Saran Division. This fact assumes significance in the light of the judicial pronouncement referred to above. However, the respondents have not placed any convincing material on record to establish that the applicants' cases are distinguishable in any material respect from the cases decided by this Bench in O.A. No. 050/00947/2022 and O.A. No. 050/00948/2022, which orders have subsequently been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

‐8‐ OA/050/00248/2023

13. It is a settled principle of law that similarly situated employees should ordinarily receive similar treatment, unless a relevant distinguishing circumstance justifies a different conclusion. Once the Hon’ble High Court has upheld the view taken by this Tribunal in respect of similarly situated departmental employees, the respondents are expected to extend the same legal treatment to other employees whose cases are covered by the same principle.

14. The respondents' objection that the applicants' results were declared in May 2006 and that they joined the post of Postman on 22.06.2006 cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive for determining their entitlement under the Old Pension Scheme. It is a fact that the applicants are not direct recruits to the post of Postman/Postal Assistant. The applicants had initially joined the postal department as GDS in the years 1995/1996 and subsequently appointed as Postman/Postal Assistant after going through the process of selection by departmental examination. The issue requires consideration in the light of their initial engagement in the Department of Posts, the nature and continuity of such engagement, the relevant recruitment vacancies and the law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Uma Kant Jha (supra).

15. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, particularly the judgment dated 25.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14291 of 2025 and C.W.J.C. No. 14268 of 2025, this Tribunal finds that the claim of the applicants deserves consideration in the light of the principles laid down therein. The respondents cannot reject the claim solely on the ground that the applicants were appointed to the post of Postman after 01.01.2004, without examining their individual service particulars of initial joining in 1995/1996 as GDS; and the applicability of the aforesaid judgments.

16. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna in Union of India & Others Vs. Uma Kant Jha (supra), as well as the

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI

‐9‐ OA/050/00248/2023

subsequent order dated 25.11.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14291 of 2025 and C.W.J.C. No. 14268 of 2025, the present Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the competent respondent authority to consider the claim of the applicants for coverage under the Old Pension Scheme in accordance with the principles laid down in the aforesaid judicial pronouncements.

17. The respondents shall examine the initial date of engagement of each applicant in the Department of Posts as GDS/Extra Departmental Employee, the continuity and nature of such engagement, and other service particulars. Upon verification, if the applicants are found similarly situated and covered by the aforesaid judgments, they shall be extended the benefit of the Old Pension Scheme under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, with all consequential pensionary benefits, in accordance with law after making due adjustment of the monetary contribution by way of Government contribution under NPS in the account of the applicants.

18. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19. Accordingly, the Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/-

(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) Member (A) Srk.

SURYAROOP KABI SURYARO OP KABI