Supreme Court Denies Pension Benefit by Combining Gramin Dak Sevak Service with Regular Postal Service: Union of India & Ors. vs. Gandiba Behera (08 November 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 08 November 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1122
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, Deepak Gupta J., Aniruddha Bose J.
Can prior service as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) be combined with regular postal service to meet pension eligibility? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a batch of appeals, ultimately ruling against the combination of these service periods. This decision impacts numerous postal employees who transitioned from GDS to regular positions. The bench comprised Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak Gupta, and Justice Aniruddha Bose, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The core issue in this batch of appeals revolves around whether the service rendered by postal department employees as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) should be included when calculating their qualifying service for pension after they are appointed to regular posts within the same department. The Central Administrative Tribunal and various High Courts had previously ruled in favor of the GDS employees, allowing their past service to be considered for pension eligibility. However, the Union of India appealed these decisions, arguing that GDS service is distinct from regular employment and should not be combined for pension calculations.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The dispute originated from decisions of various benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal, followed by judgments of different High Courts. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, initially ruled in favor of Gandiba Behera, directing that his service as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) be counted towards his qualifying service for pension. The Orissa High Court upheld this decision. Similar rulings were made by other High Courts and the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in favor of GDS employees. The Union of India, aggrieved by these decisions, filed appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (referred to as the 1972 Rules), and the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 (referred to as the 2011 Rules). The 1972 Rules stipulate that a minimum of 10 years of regular service is required for pension eligibility. Clause 49(1) of the 1972 Rules states:

“In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month’s emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service.”

The 2011 Rules govern the service conditions of Gramin Dak Sevaks. Rule 6 of the 2011 Rules specifies:

“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.”

The Supreme Court also considered the implications of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the dismissal of civil servants.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Appellants (Union of India)

• The service of a GDS cannot be equated with regular service because GDS employees have shorter working hours (3-5 hours) and are allowed to pursue other vocations simultaneously.
• GDS services are governed by a different set of rules, and the Court should not direct the administration to create new service rules for a particular set of employees.
• The 1991 circular, which allowed for the addition of 50% of the service of Extra Departmental Agents, applied to full-time casual employees, not part-time employees like the GDS.

Arguments on behalf of the Respondents (GDS Employees)

• GDS employees hold civil posts and are government servants, as established in prior cases like Superintendent of Post Offices and Others v. P.K. Rajamma [(1977) 3 SCC 94] and Chet Ram vs. Jit Singh [(2008) 14 SCC 427].
• There should be no discrimination between two sets of pensioners as per the principle laid down in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305].
• The 2011 Rules, specifically Rule 6, which denies pension to GDS employees, has been struck down as unconstitutional by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
• The judgment in Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand and Others [2018 (1) SLR 724 (SC)] supports the inclusion of prior service for pension benefits.
• Clause 49(3) of the 1972 Rules allows for the computation of additional service for qualifying service, which should be applied to the GDS employees.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the services rendered by employees in the postal department in the capacity of Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) should be computed for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service for their pension after they get selected in regular posts in the said department.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases

• Superintendent of Post Offices and Others v. P.K. Rajamma [(1977) 3 SCC 94]: This case established that Extra-Departmental Agents in the postal department hold civil posts. The Court clarified that while GDS employees hold civil posts, this does not automatically mean their service can be combined with regular service for pension benefits.
• D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India [(1983) 1 SCC 305]: This case dealt with discrimination between two sets of pensioners. The Court distinguished this case, stating that the factual context was different and that the principle of non-discrimination does not apply in the same way to GDS employees.
• Chet Ram vs. Jit Singh [(2008) 14 SCC 427]: This case examined whether a GDS is a government servant. The Court acknowledged that GDS employees are government servants but clarified that this does not mean their service can be combined with regular service for pension benefits.
• Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Nakara Singh and Another [(2010) 4 SCC 317]: This case involved work-charged employees. The Court distinguished this case, stating that GDS employees are not work-charged employees and their service conditions are different.
• Union of India & Ors. Vs. The Registrar & Anr. (Civil Appeal Nos. 13675-13676 of 2015): In this case, the Supreme Court rejected a similar plea for combining GDS service with regular service for pension. The Court relied on this case to justify its decision.
• Habib Khan v. State of Uttarakhand and Others [2018 (1) SLR 724 (SC)]: This case involved a work-charged employee seeking to have their prior service counted for pension. The Court distinguished this case as well, stating that it was based on specific circulars and did not apply to GDS employees.
• Union of India and Others Vs. Dattappa (W.P. No. 81699/2011): An unreported judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which favored counting GDS service for pension, was cited but not followed by the Supreme Court as it was contrary to the decision in Union of India & Ors. Vs. The Registrar & Anr.

Legal Provisions

• Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: The Court examined Clause 49(1), which specifies the minimum service required for pension, and Rule 88, which allows for relaxation of rules.
• Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011: The Court considered Rule 6, which denies pension to GDS employees.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the service rendered by the respondents as GDS or other Extra-Departmental Agents cannot be factored in for computing their qualifying services in regular posts for the purpose of pension. The Court relied on its previous decision in Union of India & Ors. v. The Registrar & Anr., where a similar plea for combining GDS service was rejected. The Court stated that there was no specific rule or administrative circular specifying the computation of service rendered as GDS to fill the gap in the qualifying service.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the distinct nature of GDS employment compared to regular postal service. The Court emphasized that GDS employees work part-time, have different service rules, and are allowed to engage in other vocations. This distinction, according to the Court, made it inappropriate to combine GDS service with regular service for pension benefits. The Court also noted the absence of any specific rule or administrative circular that would allow for such a combination.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the argument based on Clause 49(3) of the 1972 Rules, but rejected them. The Court clarified that the rule provides a one-time benefit for service of more than 3 months in a fraction of a year, not a continuous addition to service. The final decision was reached by emphasizing the distinct nature of GDS employment and the absence of legal provisions allowing for the combination of GDS and regular service for pension benefits.

The Court stated: “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.”

The Court also noted: “There is no specific Rule or even administrative circular specifying computation of service period rendered as GDS to fill up the gap in the qualifying service requirement of the respondents in this set of appeals.”

Further, the court observed: “Service tenure of an employee in a particular post cannot be artificially extended in that manner in the absence of any specific legal provision.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• Service as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) cannot be combined with regular postal service for the purpose of calculating qualifying service for pension.
• GDS employment is considered part-time, with different service rules and conditions than regular employment.
• The absence of specific rules or administrative circulars allowing for such combination was a critical factor in the Court’s decision.
• The Court directed the authorities to consider exercising their power to relax the mandatory requirement of qualifying service under Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules, if the conditions are met.

Directions

The Supreme Court provided the following directions:

1. If the Central Government or postal department has already issued any pension orders to any of the respondents, such pension should not be disturbed.
2. For other respondents who have not been issued pension orders, the concerned ministry may consider whether the minimum qualifying service rule can be relaxed in their cases under Rule 88 of the 1972 Rules.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that service rendered as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) cannot be combined with regular postal service for the purpose of calculating qualifying service for pension. This decision reaffirms the distinction between GDS employment and regular employment, as previously held in Union of India & Ors. v. The Registrar & Anr.. This case clarifies that the nature of GDS employment as part-time and governed by different service rules prevents its inclusion in the calculation of qualifying service for regular pension benefits.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Gandiba Behera clarifies that prior service as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) cannot be combined with regular postal service to meet pension eligibility requirements. While the Court acknowledged the hardship faced by many employees, it emphasized the distinct nature of GDS employment and the absence of legal provisions allowing for such a combination. The Court directed the authorities to consider relaxing the qualifying service requirements in deserving cases, providing a measure of relief. This judgment sets a precedent against combining GDS and regular service for pension benefits, impacting numerous postal employees.

Category:

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Pension Rules

Child Category: Gramin Dak Sevak

Child Category: Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972

FAQ

Q: Can my service as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) be counted towards my pension after I become a regular postal employee?

A: No, according to the Supreme Court, your service as a GDS cannot be combined with your regular postal service to calculate your qualifying service for pension.

Q: Why can’t GDS service be combined with regular postal service for pension?

A: The Supreme Court has ruled that GDS employment is part-time, with different service rules and conditions than regular employment, and there is no specific rule allowing for such combination.

Q: What if I am just short of the required 10 years of regular service for pension?

A: The Supreme Court has directed the postal authorities to consider relaxing the minimum qualifying service requirement in such cases under Rule 88 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.

Q: What if I have already been granted a pension based on combined GDS and regular service?

A: The Supreme Court has directed that if you have already been granted a pension, it should not be disturbed.

Q: What is the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972?

A: These are the rules that govern pension eligibility and calculations for central government employees. They stipulate that a minimum of 10 years of regular service is required for pension eligibility.

Q: What are the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011?

A: These rules govern the service conditions of Gramin Dak Sevaks. They specify that GDS employees are not entitled to a pension, although this rule has been challenged in court.