ups_00522 — In the present case, the qualifying service of the Applicant, a Postman who has put in service of less than 10 years, for the purposes of determining his qualifying service for pensionary benefits is to be calculated by taking into account certain percentage of service rendered by the Applicant herein as EDA

UPS

In the present case, the qualifying service of the Applicant, a Postman who has put in service of less than 10 years, for the purposes of determining his qualifying service for pensionary benefits is to be calculated by taking into account certain percentage of service rendered by the Applicant herein as EDA — This case involves a postman who was denied pension due to less than 10 years of service as a postman, despite having put in over 40 years of total service. The case number is O.A. No. 670 of 2012, a... — Facts: The Applicant herein was appointed as GDS MD in Etah Division of Postal Department and posted at Nidhori Kalan with effect from 11-11- 1970. He participated and was selected for the Postman on 15-10-1990. The Applicant joined as a Postman in Group 'D' service at Sahawar post office on 26-10-1990. But the result of the above-said postman's post was cancelled by the Superintendent of Post Office (R-3 herein) on 24-5-1991. Hence the Applicant was relieved from that post on 26-5-1991. Thus he worked as a Group 'D'employee from 26-10-1990 to 26-5-1991. Later, the Applicant got promotion as postman on seniority post and assumed charge as postman on 16-4-1999 at Soron Post Office. He retired from service on 31-7-2008. The Applicant was denied monthly pension as he did not complete 10 years of service as Postman. Questioning that denial, he filed O.A. No. 1342 of 2011 before Principal Bench which gave liberty to the Applicant to submit a representation and the Director of Postal Services to consider and reply to the representation in two months time from 18-4-2011. The representation of the Applicant was rejected in terms of impugned Memo. No. AC/117-47/2011-12, dated 14-7-2011 on the ground that before his retirement as postman, the Applicant had not completed the required length of service sufficient to qualify him for pension. Relevant portion of the order, dated 14-7-2011 is reproduced. Para. 4 of the order is relevant which gives the reasoning for not granting him pension. The Applicant reiterated his demand for pension taking into account his earlier service as postman from 26-10-1990 to 26-5-1991 when he was discharged from the post of postman. He claims to have put in 40 years of service. He relies on the judgment in O.A. No. 1264 of 2001 of Madras Bench in the case of M.A. Palanisamy v. Secretary, Department of Post and another. That decision of CAT/ Madras was also upheld by the High Court of Madras. The Respondent reiterated their refusal for payment of pension as he had not completed 10 years of service as postman and the case of Palanisamy ( supra) is personal to that Applicant.

UPS

In the present case, the qualifying service of the Applicant, a Postman who has put in service of less than 10 years, for the purposes of determining his qualifying service for pensionary benefits is to be calculated by taking into account certain percentage of service rendered by the Applicant herein as EDA — This case involves a postman who was denied pension due to less than 10 years of service as a postman, despite having put in over 40 years of total service. The case number is O.A. No. 670 of 2012, a... — Facts: The Applicant herein was appointed as GDS MD in Etah Division of Postal Department and posted at Nidhori Kalan with effect from 11-11- 1970. He participated and was selected for the Postman on 15-10-1990. The Applicant joined as a Postman in Group 'D' service at Sahawar post office on 26-10-1990. But the result of the above-said postman's post was cancelled by the Superintendent of Post Office (R-3 herein) on 24-5-1991. Hence the Applicant was relieved from that post on 26-5-1991. Thus he worked as a Group 'D'employee from 26-10-1990 to 26-5-1991. Later, the Applicant got promotion as postman on seniority post and assumed charge as postman on 16-4-1999 at Soron Post Office. He retired from service on 31-7-2008. The Applicant was denied monthly pension as he did not complete 10 years of service as Postman. Questioning that denial, he filed O.A. No. 1342 of 2011 before Principal Bench which gave liberty to the Applicant to submit a representation and the Director of Postal Services to consider and reply to the representation in two months time from 18-4-2011. The representation of the Applicant was rejected in terms of impugned Memo. No. AC/117-47/2011-12, dated 14-7-2011 on the ground that before his retirement as postman, the Applicant had not completed the required length of service sufficient to qualify him for pension. Relevant portion of the order, dated 14-7-2011 is reproduced. Para. 4 of the order is relevant which gives the reasoning for not granting him pension. The Applicant reiterated his demand for pension taking into account his earlier service as postman from 26-10-1990 to 26-5-1991 when he was discharged from the post of postman. He claims to have put in 40 years of service. He relies on the judgment in O.A. No. 1264 of 2001 of Madras Bench in the case of M.A. Palanisamy v. Secretary, Department of Post and another. That decision of CAT/ Madras was also upheld by the High Court of Madras. The Respondent reiterated their refusal for payment of pension as he had not completed 10 years of service as postman and the case of Palanisamy ( supra) is personal to that Applicant.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text