ups_00063 — A regular employee posted as Postman from GDS cadre is entitled for pension if he had put in a service of less than 10 years to make him eligible for pension. While "calculating the length of qualifying service, a fraction of three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half year and reckoned as qualifying service" as per Rule 49 (3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In the present case, the Applicant had put in 9 years, 7 months and 21 days of service. Hence, he is entitled for pensio

A regular employee posted as Postman from GDS cadre is entitled for pension if he had put in a service of less than 10 years to make him eligible for pension. While "calculating the length of qualifying service, a fraction of three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half year and reckoned as qualifying service" as per Rule 49 (3) of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. In the present case, the Applicant had put in 9 years, 7 months and 21 days of service. Hence, he is entitled for pension treating his service as 10 years — This chunk is part of an order in O.A. No. 541 of 2013, where a regular employee who served as a Postman from GDS cadre for 9 years, 7 months, and 21 days is determined to be eligible for pension sin... — Facts: The Applicant herein was elevated as regular Postman from the category of GDS/BPM at Huskur in Mandhya. On passing the departmental examination, he was selected and posted as Postman at Maddur SO on 9-11-2011 and retired in that capacity on 30-6-2011. On the date of retirement, he had put in a service of 9 years, 7 months and 21 days. As he did not possess 10 years of completed service, he was denied pension and pensionary benefits. Hence, the Applicant filed this OA for a direction to the Respondents to grant monthly pension and other benefits from the next date of retirement, i.e. on 30-6-2011. Respondents rely on the Rule 4 of P & T Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 which expressly provides that the employees shall not be entitled to any pension. The case was heard. In respect of Madras Bench of CAT by order, dated 18-4-2002 in O.A . No. 1264 of 2001 filed by Shri Palaniniti, a prohibition has been incorporated by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras on some case to effect that it should not be treated as precedent for others to follow as stipulated in the order, dated 4-10-2007. As per that order, Shri Palaniniti was granted pension even though he did not put in 10 years of regular service. The judgment quotes some other cases related to the present one to grant pension with condition. In that condition, it was held: