ups_00543 — In O.A. No. 1264 of 2001 delivered by Madras Bench of Tribunal and two other similar OAs filed before Cuttack Bench namely, O.A. No. 310 of 2010 and O.A. No. 756 of 2012 for counting the services as ED put in by an employee who was brought to Group 'D' post in Postal Department got pension including the ED service to make up the shortfall of 10 years service for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. As similarly situated persons had secured pension, the Applicant herein, who joined as GDSDA

UPS

In O.A. No. 1264 of 2001 delivered by Madras Bench of Tribunal and two other similar OAs filed before Cuttack Bench namely, O.A. No. 310 of 2010 and O.A. No. 756 of 2012 for counting the services as ED put in by an employee who was brought to Group 'D' post in Postal Department got pension including the ED service to make up the shortfall of 10 years service for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. As similarly situated persons had secured pension, the Applicant herein, who joined as GDSDA (EDDA) and then brought to Group 'D' service and possessed Group 'D' service less than 10 years should be granted the pension and pensionary benefits adding his service as EDDA from 1-1-1966 to 20-5-1997 — The chunk provided is the held section of the judicial order in the case Rama Chandra Murmu v. Director General of Post and others, where the court rules that the Respondents must count the shortfall... — Facts:The Applicant herein,worked as GDSDA (EDDA) Chaksuliapada Branch Office and also in Mayurbhanj Division in similar capacity and thereafter as Group 'D' employee at Kendrapara Head Office on 21-5-1997 and transferred to Mayurbhanj Division on 7-11-2011, retired on reaching the age or superannuation on 31-3-2005. As the Postal Department does not count the ED services for calculating the retiral benefits, the Applicant was denied pensionary benefits as his services in Postal Department as Group 'D' was only 7 years, 10 months and 10 days which is short of minimum 10 years or service to get retirement benefits of pension, etc. Hence, he filed this OA to set aside the letter, dated 30-9-2014 of denial of his pensionary benefits and grant him the minimum pension by taking into consideration the shortfall period of service adding of EDDA / GDSDA for reckoning 10 years of qualifying service. The Tribunal after hearing both sides noted the service rendered by him as EDDA from 1-1-1966 to 20-5-1997 before he was posted as Group 'D' employee. He retired on superannuation on 31-3-2005. The Tribunal noted the cases of denial of retiral benefits due to service period as Group 'D' less than 10 years of service and refusal by Postal Department to add the EDDA / GDSDA service prior to joining Group 'D' service. The Tribunal at Madras and Cuttack in various such cases directed the Postal Department to add the ED service to make good the shortfall in 10 years service for grant of final retirement benefits. Those such cases are quoted in the judgment as those judgments when appealed against were dismissed by Apex Court In the present case, "no new ground or material so as to deviate from the view already taken in the earlier cases, cited supra. We are reminded with a legal maxim "Lex prospicit, non respicit (The Law looks forward and not backward). As a benevolent employer, the authority cannot create a situation compelling each and every similarly employees to approach the Court for same relief as has been granted to others in same subject. Once a judgment attained finality, it could not be termed as wrong and its benefits ought to have been extended to other similarly situated persons as held in the case of Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others [ 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 783 ]. The above being the position of the fact and law, sufficient force exists on the stand taken by the Applicant. The impugned order of rejection, dated 30-9-2014 is quashed and the Respondents are directed to bring such shortfall period of service from the ED employment to count the minimum period of 10 years qualifying service of the Applicant and accordingly pay the final retirement benefits to the Applicant from the date of his retirement preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which 6% interest should be paid on the arrear pension and pensionary due from the date of retirement till the actual payment is made. Officials responsible for causing delay in the actual payment are liable for bearing the interest from them".

UPS

In O.A. No. 1264 of 2001 delivered by Madras Bench of Tribunal and two other similar OAs filed before Cuttack Bench namely, O.A. No. 310 of 2010 and O.A. No. 756 of 2012 for counting the services as ED put in by an employee who was brought to Group 'D' post in Postal Department got pension including the ED service to make up the shortfall of 10 years service for grant of pension and pensionary benefits. As similarly situated persons had secured pension, the Applicant herein, who joined as GDSDA (EDDA) and then brought to Group 'D' service and possessed Group 'D' service less than 10 years should be granted the pension and pensionary benefits adding his service as EDDA from 1-1-1966 to 20-5-1997 — The chunk provided is the held section of the judicial order in the case Rama Chandra Murmu v. Director General of Post and others, where the court rules that the Respondents must count the shortfall... — Facts:The Applicant herein,worked as GDSDA (EDDA) Chaksuliapada Branch Office and also in Mayurbhanj Division in similar capacity and thereafter as Group 'D' employee at Kendrapara Head Office on 21-5-1997 and transferred to Mayurbhanj Division on 7-11-2011, retired on reaching the age or superannuation on 31-3-2005. As the Postal Department does not count the ED services for calculating the retiral benefits, the Applicant was denied pensionary benefits as his services in Postal Department as Group 'D' was only 7 years, 10 months and 10 days which is short of minimum 10 years or service to get retirement benefits of pension, etc. Hence, he filed this OA to set aside the letter, dated 30-9-2014 of denial of his pensionary benefits and grant him the minimum pension by taking into consideration the shortfall period of service adding of EDDA / GDSDA for reckoning 10 years of qualifying service. The Tribunal after hearing both sides noted the service rendered by him as EDDA from 1-1-1966 to 20-5-1997 before he was posted as Group 'D' employee. He retired on superannuation on 31-3-2005. The Tribunal noted the cases of denial of retiral benefits due to service period as Group 'D' less than 10 years of service and refusal by Postal Department to add the EDDA / GDSDA service prior to joining Group 'D' service. The Tribunal at Madras and Cuttack in various such cases directed the Postal Department to add the ED service to make good the shortfall in 10 years service for grant of final retirement benefits. Those such cases are quoted in the judgment as those judgments when appealed against were dismissed by Apex Court In the present case, "no new ground or material so as to deviate from the view already taken in the earlier cases, cited supra. We are reminded with a legal maxim "Lex prospicit, non respicit (The Law looks forward and not backward). As a benevolent employer, the authority cannot create a situation compelling each and every similarly employees to approach the Court for same relief as has been granted to others in same subject. Once a judgment attained finality, it could not be termed as wrong and its benefits ought to have been extended to other similarly situated persons as held in the case of Maharaj Krishan Bhatt and another v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others [ 2008 (2) SCC (L&S) 783 ]. The above being the position of the fact and law, sufficient force exists on the stand taken by the Applicant. The impugned order of rejection, dated 30-9-2014 is quashed and the Respondents are directed to bring such shortfall period of service from the ED employment to count the minimum period of 10 years qualifying service of the Applicant and accordingly pay the final retirement benefits to the Applicant from the date of his retirement preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which 6% interest should be paid on the arrear pension and pensionary due from the date of retirement till the actual payment is made. Officials responsible for causing delay in the actual payment are liable for bearing the interest from them".

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text