Allowed

Union Of India and Ors. v. Mohan Prasad

Patna HC18 Apr 2016CWJC/15614/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court in a writ petition set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting pension to a retired Extra Departmental Delivery Agent. The Court held that the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Civil Appeal No. 13675/13676/2015 precluded pension entitlement due to lack of requisite service and inapplicability of the 1991 DPT circular to casual agents.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is allowed, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside, and the Original Application stands dismissed.

Union Of India and Ors. Vs Mohan Prasad — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15614 of 2014

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Union of India through the Secretary Department of Posts Dak Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna. 3. The Superintendent of Post Office Bhojpur Division, Ara. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus Mohan Prasad, son of Late Baleshwar Prasad, resident of village Masurhi, Police Station Jagdishpur, District - Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.S.G. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, C.G.C. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra, Advocate.

¶4

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶5

and

¶6

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT

¶7

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 18-04-2016

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶9

respondent.

¶10

The challenge in the present writ application is to an order dated 22^nd February, 2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in an Original Application No. 733 of 2011, whereby the original application filed by the respondent herein was allowed directing the petitioners to grant pension to the respondent after taking his service as minimum qualifying service for pension or by adding short fall from Extra Departmental Delivery Agent service within three months.

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.15614 of 2014 dt.18-04-2016

¶12

2/4

¶13

The respondent was working as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent from 10.11.1969. He was promoted/ appointed to Group-D service on 29^th April 1998. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31^st July 2007 i.e., after 09 years 02 months and 19 days of service against Group-D post and after 29 years against an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent post.

¶14

The respondent claims benefit of pension relying upon the order passed in the case of Secretary Department of Posts and Ors. v. M.R. Palani Swamy in SLP (Civil) CC 13829 of 2008 . The learned Tribunal allowed the original application holding that the case of the applicant is identical to an earlier order passed in Kant Lal Mandal vs. Union of India and Ors. in O.A. No. 16 of 2007 which still holds the field after M.R.Palani Swamy (supra) and is not reversed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 1367513676 of 2015 - Union of India and Ors. vs. The Registrar and Anr., wherein in identical circumstances, the benefit of pension was declined holding that the circular of Department of Personnel and Training issued in the year 1991 is not applicable to the Extra Departmental Delivery Agents.

¶16

In the aforesaid case, the respondent N.S.Poonusamy

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.15614 of 2014 dt.18-04-2016

¶18

3/4

¶19

worked as an Extra Departmental Delivery Agent in the Postal Department from the year 1968 to 1993. His service was regularized with effect from 01.04.1993. He retired on 31.05.2002. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded that Extra Departmental Delivery Agent is required to render between three to five hours of service every day and that their services were engaged to reach out to the addresses in far flung villages in the country where establishment and maintenance of a regular post office is not a viable proposition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found that the Department of Personnel and Training Circular of 1991 is applicable to full time casual employees and not to part time casual employees such as Extra Departmental Delivery Agents. It was also observed that the matter of grant of pension pertains to policy and involves financial implications. Though, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not interfered with the pension granted to the respondent therein, but the principles of law were laid down.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent herein is not entitled to pension as he has not completed minimum service of ten years.

¶21

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted after delay and therefore, the period of delay should be added in the qualifying service in the light of the judgment of this

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.15614 of 2014 dt.18-04-2016

¶23

4/4

¶24

Court in CWJC No. 13481 of 2013.

¶25

We do not find any merit in the said argument. Firstly, it is not the case of the respondent before the Tribunal that the Departmental Promotion Committee was delayed intentionally so as to harm the interest to the applicant. Still further, prima facie , we have reservation with the view taken that delay in convening the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee can be counted for calculating the qualifying service for the purposes of pension. But in the present no such foundation was laid, therefore, we do not wish to examine such argument any further.

¶26

In view of the said fact, the present writ application is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the Original Application stands dismissed.

¶27

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶28

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶29

Sujit/-P. Kumar N.A.F.R.

¶30

Union Of India and Ors. v. Mohan Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union Of India and Ors. v. Mohan Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uma Shankar Singh Vs The Vice Chancellor, Veer Kunwar Singh University and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Md. Abid Hussain and Anr.

Kumari Bibha Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Tuntun Kumar Vs The Union Of India

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Mahendra Kumar Singh

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Mostt. Jeenat Khatoon