Partly allowed

The Union of India v. Sri H Vittal Handa

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2021WP/2052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by the Union of India. The court held that a Postal Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) is not entitled to pension under the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972. The services rendered by a GDS cannot be added to regular tenure for pension calculation.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the original application for pension is set aside. The writ petition is allowed.

The Union of India Vs Sri H Vittal Handa — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.2052 OF 2019(S-CAT)

¶9

BETWEEN

¶10

1 . THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN,

¶11

NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶12

2 . THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL KARNATAKA CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

3 . THE POST MASTER GENERAL S.K.REGION

¶14

BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

4 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES UDUPI DIVISION, UDUPI-576 101

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI B PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

AND

¶20

SRI H VITTAL HANDA S/O LATE NARAYANA HANDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RETIRED AS MTS, BARKUR-576 210 R/AT HAIKADI, P.O.HALIYANA, A/W BELVE-576 212 UDUPI DIVISION.

¶21

SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LRS.,

¶22

(a) SMT.KANAKA

¶23

W/O LATE H.VITTALA HANDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶24

(b) SRI SURESH

¶25

S/O LATE H VITTAL HANDA

¶26

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶27

¶28

D/O LATE H.VITTAL HANDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶29

(d) SRI GANGA

¶30

S/O LATE H VITTAL HANDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶31

(e) SRI UMESHA

¶32

S/O LATE H.VITTAL HANDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶33

ALL ARE RESIDING AT H.NO.2/57 SRIRAMA NILAYA HARIKADY, BAVANI, HILIYANA POST AND VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI, PIN - 576 212.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI A.R.HOLLA, ADVOCATE)

¶36

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 13.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH IN 170/00031/2017 BY HOLDING THE SAME TO BE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, NON SPEAKING AND UNTENABLE AND DECLARE THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE PENSION UNDER CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICE (PENSION) RULES, 1972.

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petitioner/The Union of India has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2018 passed by the CAT in O.A.No.170/00031/2017.

¶41

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the deceased Government servant was appointed on 6.6.1974 as a Postal Gramin Dak Sevak (for short "GDS") and he was considered for appointment to regular Group-D cadre on 6.7.2010. At the relevant point of time, there were no

¶42

¶43

vacancies available with the Department and finally a petition was preferred by the deceased employee claiming appointment to regular Group-D cadre(MTS Cadre). The original application preferred in the matter was allowed on 3.3.2009 i.e. O.A.No.17/2008 and the matter has reached this Court. The Division Bench of this Court while scrutinizing the judgment delivered by the Tribunal in W.P.No.13654/2009 (Post Master General .vs. H. Vittal Handa) in paragraph 4 has held as under:

¶44

"4. So far as the contention of the present petitioner before the CAT that unless the private respondent herein possesses the qualification of middle standard pass, he is not eligible for the post of group 'D' from the cadre of GDS is incorrect on perusal of the Recruitment Rules 2002. As a matter of fact, some time in the year 2000 itself, private respondent herein was empanelled as future candidate for the appointment to group 'D' post. In that view of the matter. In the light of the submissions of the petitioner's counsel that as on today there are no vacancies of group 'D' post, we direct the petitioner to consider the case of the private respondent herein to group 'D' post as and when vacancy arises in future. So

¶45

¶46

far as the observations of the CAT at para No.9, no exception can be taken, as they have referred to not only the Recruitment Rules of 2002 but also similar application in O.A. No.438/2007 which was disposed of an 21.07.2008 by the CAT.

¶47

In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the petition. No order as to costs."

¶48

The Union of India was directed to appoint the deceased employee on a Group-D post as and when vacancy arises in future. The judgment was delivered by this Court on 14.6.2010 and finally as and when the vacancy was available he was appointed vide order dated 6.7.2010. Thus, it is evident that the deceased employee was appointed as a Group-D in the regular cadre on 6.7.2010. Rule 6 of the GDA(Conduct & Employment)Rules, 2001 clearly provides that GDS are not entitled for pension and a sum of Rs.54,000/was granted to the deceased employee on 8.7.2010 on termination of his engagement as GDS. He finally attained the age of superannuation on 30.6.2012 and started claiming pension. As pension was not paid to him, he preferred an

¶49

¶50

original application and the Tribunal has allowed the original application by an order dated 13.8.2018.

¶51

During the pendency of the present petition,

¶52

unfortunately, the respondent-employee expired and his legal representatives are brought on record. However, inspite of service of notice, they have not appeared before this Court.

¶53

The moot question before this Court is:

¶54

"Whether the deceased employee is entitled for pension or not?"

¶55

The statutory provision governing the field i.e. GDA

¶56

(Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 makes it very clear that GDS are not entitled for pension. The new pension scheme came into force with effect from 1.1.2004 and the appointment of the petitioner to Group-D post in the regular cadre took place on 6.7.2010. A similar dispute has been looked into by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India .vs. Gandiba Behera[Civil Appeal

¶57

¶58

No.8497/2019]. Paragraph 24 of the aforesaid judgment

¶59

reads as under:

¶60

"24. For the reasons we have already discussed, we are of the opinion that the judgments under appeal cannot be sustained. There is no provision under the law on the basis of which any period of the service rendered by the respondents in the capacity of GDS could be added to their regular tenure in the postal department for the purpose of fulfilling the period of qualifying service on the question of grant of pension."

¶61

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar

¶62

circumstances has arrived at a conclusion that services rendered by an employee in the capacity of GDS could not be added to the regular tenure in the postal department for purposes of fulfilling the period of qualifying service on the question of grant of pension. Resultantly, in the present case also his services rendered as GDS cannot be looked into. While he was serving as GDS, the new pension scheme came

¶63

¶64

into effect on 1.1.2004. Therefore, the order passed by the

¶65

Tribunal deserves to be set aside and accordingly, set aside.

¶66

The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶67

All pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.

¶68

Sd/JUDGE

¶69