ups_00134 — Applicant, herein, having applied for the post of Postman from GDS against vacancies for the post of Postman in 2002 should be treated as coming under the rule existing in the year 2002, i.e. as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and not based on the New Pension Scheme (NPS) which came into effect from 1-1-2004 even though the post of Postman selection under merit quota was conducted later than 1-1-2004 by the department

UPS

Applicant, herein, having applied for the post of Postman from GDS against vacancies for the post of Postman in 2002 should be treated as coming under the rule existing in the year 2002, i.e. as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and not based on the New Pension Scheme (NPS) which came into effect from 1-1-2004 even though the post of Postman selection under merit quota was conducted later than 1-1-2004 by the department — This chunk is about an appeal (O.A. No. 324 of 2013) made by a GDS MC who was selected for the post of Postman in 2002, but was included under the New Pension Scheme despite being appointed after Jan... — Facts:The Applicant herein, a GDS MC, was selected for the post of Postman for vacancy that arose in 2002 under Chief Postmaster-General (R-2), Trivandrum Postal Circle. The examination was notified on 15-1-2004 and the Applicant was selected by Order, dated 13-7-2004. As the examination was conducted after 1-1-2004 and the Applicant was selected and posted after 1-1-2004 as Postman, the Respondents included him for pension and pensionary benefits under the new pensionary scheme which came into being after 1-1-2004. Hence the Applicant filed this OA to treat his pension and pensionary benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and thereby no deduction from salary is to be resorted to under New Pension Scheme. The Applicant relies on judgments of O.A. No. 620 of 2003, dated 17-6-2011 and other relevant OAs decided as per his prayer. The Tribunal heard both sides and came to the conclusion that the case of the Applicant is squarely covered by the above-cited decisions, viz. 203/2012 (A/3) Common Order, dated 17-6-2011, O.A. No. 102 of 2010, O.A. No. 849 of 2010 dated 21-9-2011.The Tribunal does not find any reason to deviate from the decisions in those OAs. Further it held: "Whatever be the reasons stated by the Respondents for delay in conducting the selection for Postman after 1-1-2004 from among the GDS, it is crystal clear that the vacancy that arose in 2002 was filled up by appointing the Applicant only on 13-7-2004 (A/1) order selecting the Applicant for the cadre of Postman. It is settled law that any delay or lapses on the part of the administration shall not be permitted to recoil the future of the employees".

UPS

Applicant, herein, having applied for the post of Postman from GDS against vacancies for the post of Postman in 2002 should be treated as coming under the rule existing in the year 2002, i.e. as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and not based on the New Pension Scheme (NPS) which came into effect from 1-1-2004 even though the post of Postman selection under merit quota was conducted later than 1-1-2004 by the department — This chunk is about an appeal (O.A. No. 324 of 2013) made by a GDS MC who was selected for the post of Postman in 2002, but was included under the New Pension Scheme despite being appointed after Jan... — Facts:The Applicant herein, a GDS MC, was selected for the post of Postman for vacancy that arose in 2002 under Chief Postmaster-General (R-2), Trivandrum Postal Circle. The examination was notified on 15-1-2004 and the Applicant was selected by Order, dated 13-7-2004. As the examination was conducted after 1-1-2004 and the Applicant was selected and posted after 1-1-2004 as Postman, the Respondents included him for pension and pensionary benefits under the new pensionary scheme which came into being after 1-1-2004. Hence the Applicant filed this OA to treat his pension and pensionary benefits of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and thereby no deduction from salary is to be resorted to under New Pension Scheme. The Applicant relies on judgments of O.A. No. 620 of 2003, dated 17-6-2011 and other relevant OAs decided as per his prayer. The Tribunal heard both sides and came to the conclusion that the case of the Applicant is squarely covered by the above-cited decisions, viz. 203/2012 (A/3) Common Order, dated 17-6-2011, O.A. No. 102 of 2010, O.A. No. 849 of 2010 dated 21-9-2011.The Tribunal does not find any reason to deviate from the decisions in those OAs. Further it held: "Whatever be the reasons stated by the Respondents for delay in conducting the selection for Postman after 1-1-2004 from among the GDS, it is crystal clear that the vacancy that arose in 2002 was filled up by appointing the Applicant only on 13-7-2004 (A/1) order selecting the Applicant for the cadre of Postman. It is settled law that any delay or lapses on the part of the administration shall not be permitted to recoil the future of the employees".

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text