[2025:RJ-JP:24912-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6547/2021 1. The Union of India, through The Secretary to the Govt. of India Cum Director General, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001. 2. The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur- 302007. 3. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Tonk Division, Tonk, Rajasthan. 304801 ----Petitioners Versus Moti Lal Meena S/o Shri Chita Lal, aged about 62 Years, R/o Village and Post Gaithoda, Teh. Nainwa, District Bundi, Presently Working As Edbpm, Gaithoda, Bundi Since 21/11/1981. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh for Mr. Ashish Kumar For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that issue involved in this writ petition has already been considered and decided by this Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Trilok Chand Jain (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9840/2019 along with other connected matters) decided on 25.02.2025 which reads as under:- “1. Since these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as “Tribunal”) dated 26.04.2018 in various original applications filed on behalf of the respondents including other similar matters, [2025:RJ-JP:24912-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-6547/2021] therefore with consent of the parties, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order. 2. The grievance of the applicants before the Tribunal was with regard to denial of pension by the Union of India despite the applicants having worked with them for several years on the post of Sevak (Gram Dak Sevaks). The learned Tribunal after considering the material placed before it allowed the original applications filed on behalf of the applicants and directed the Union of India for counting their services for grant of pension as they have worked on the post in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the services of Sevaks/Gram Dak Sevaks are governed by the Rules named as Post in Telegraphs Extra Departmental (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter to be referred the “Rules of 1964”) and referred the Rule 4 thereof, which reads as under: “4. Pension- The employees shall not be entitled to any pension.” 4. Counsel submits that in view of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1964 the applicants are not entitled to any pension. He further submits that these rules were amended from time to time and in view of Rule 6 of the Department of Post Gramin Dak Sevaks (Engagement and Conduct) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 2011”), the applicants are not entitled for any pension, Rule 6 of the Rules, 2011 reads as under: “6. Pension- The Sevaks shall not be entitled to any pension. However, they shall be entitled to ex-gratia gratuity or any other payment as may be decided by the Government from time to time.” 5. In support of the contentions, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and Ors. vs. Gandiba Behera, Civil Appeal No.8497/2019 decided on 08.11.2019, wherein it has been held as under : 19. Having regard to the provisions of the aforesaid Rules relating to qualifying service requirement, in our opinion the services rendered by the respondents as GDS or other Extra-Departmental Agents cannot be factored in for computing their qualifying services in regular posts under the postal department on the question of grant of pension. But we also find many of the respondents are missing pension on account of marginal shortfall in their regular service tenure. This should deserve sympathetic consideration for grant of pension. But we cannot trace our power or jurisdiction to any [2025:RJ-JP:24912-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-6547/2021] legal principle which could permit us to fill up the shortfall by importing into their service tenure, the period of work they rendered as GDS or its variants. At the same time, we also find that in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. The Registrar & Anr. (supra), though the incumbent therein (being respondent no.2) had completed nine years and two months of service, the Union of India had passed orders granting him regular pension. This Court in the order passed on 24th November 2015 had protected his pension though the appeal of Union of India was allowed. 20. 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. 21. We are also of the opinion that the authorities ought to consider their cases for exercising the power to relax the mandatory requirement of qualifying service under the 1972 Rules if they find the conditions contained in Rule 88 stand fulfilled in any of these cases. We do not accept the stand of the appellants that just because that exercise would be prolonged, recourse to Rule 88 ought not to be taken. The said Rules is not number specific, and if undue hardship is caused to a large number of employees, all of their cases ought to be considered. If in the cases of any of the respondents’ pension order has already been issued, the same shall not be disturbed, as has been directed in the case of Union of India & Ors. V Registrar & Anr. (supra). We, accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the judgments under appeal, subject to the following condition: (i) In the event the Central Government or the postal department has already issued any order for pension to any of the respondents, then such pension should not be disturbed. In issuing this direction, we are following the course which was directed to be adopted by this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Registrat & Anr. (supra). (ii) In respect of the other respondents, who have not been issued any order for pension, the concerned ministry may consider as to whether the minimum qualifying service Rule can be relaxed in their cases in terms of Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules. 22. Interim orders passed in these appeals, if any, [2025:RJ-JP:24912-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-6547/2021] shall stand dissolved. All connected applications shall stand disposed of. 23. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in O. Ramachandran & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No.13500/2016 decided on 17.10.2016, wherein it has been held as under: “Though Mr. K. Ravi Ananthapadmanabhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to implement, Hon’ble Justice Talwar’s Committee’s Report, we are of the view that, it cannot be done, in view of the specific stand of the respondents, in the counter affidavit, which we have explained and it is for the respondent, to decide. Admittedly, the writ petitioners are doing only part time job, and between Gramin Dak Sevaks and regular Grough-D servants, in Department of Posts, there is clear variation in service conditions. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the length of service, nature duties, service rendered by the Gramin Dak Sevaks in the villages, across the country, they should be paid pension, on par with Group ‘D’ categories, in postal department, and Rule 6 of Gramin Dak Sevak Rules, 2011, denying pension, is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contended that the policy of the Government is discriminatory, for the reasons stated supra, this court is not inclined to accept the said contentions. For the reasons stated supra, there are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in view of the judgment passed in the matters of Union of India and O. Ramachandran (both supra), the order passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petitions and submitted that a sympathetic view may be taken by the Union of India while considering their case for grant of pension. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. These writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, there is no provision either in the Rules of 1964 or in the Rules of 2011 as amended from time to time, for grant of pension to the persons working on the post of Sevaks/GDS; secondly, in view of the [2025:RJ-JP:24912-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-6547/2021] judgment passed in the matter of Union of India and O. Ramachandran (both supra), in our view the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable. 11. In that view of the matter, all the writ petitions are allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal dated 26.04.2018 is set aside. However, the applicants are at liberty to file application for sympathetic consideration regarding grant of pension before the Union of India. Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.” 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, despite service. 3. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Union of India (supra) and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 14.11.2018 is set aside. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J DIVYA /107