Delhi High Court holds that periods spent as GDS cannot be counted towards qualifying service for pension under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, even upon subsequent absorption as regular Group ‘D’ or ‘C’ staff. Judgment affirms and applies binding Supreme Court precedent (Gandiba Behera) and is of binding precedential value for subordinate courts and CAT benches. Relevant for public sector employment and service jurisprudence.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | W.P.(C)/1323/2021 of NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POSTAL EMPLOYESS & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA |
| CNR | DLHC017760512020 |
| Date of Registration | 01-02-2021 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Petitions disposed, prior tribunal orders set aside (except as noted). |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla, Hon’ble Ms. Justice Madhu Jain |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts and tribunals within NCT of Delhi; persuasive for other High Courts and CAT benches nationally |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service Law / Public Employment / Pensionary Benefits |
| Questions of Law | Whether service rendered as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) is to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits under CCS (Pension) Rules upon absorption as regular postal staff. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Delhi High Court, after considering binding Supreme Court decisions, held that there is no legal provision permitting the period of service rendered as GDS to be counted towards qualifying service for government pension, even if the employee is subsequently regularised. This bar is express in the governing rules, and has been consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court. The employment as a GDS is distinct, part-time, governed by different rules, and cannot be equated with regular service for the purpose of pension. Orders of the Tribunal granting such counting for pension are set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Express statutory provisions (Rules 6 of 2011, 4 of 1964); Supreme Court precedent making clear legislative distinction between regular and GDS employees; explicit exclusion of GDS service for pension counting; precedent barring extension/merger of GDS and regular service for pension purposes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners (Union of India/Postal Dept.) and respondents (former GDS, some regularised in Group ‘D’/’C’ posts) disputed whether GDS service qualifies for pension after regularisation; challenged CAT orders which directed such counting/pension extension; relevant rules bar GDS from pension; matter governed by Supreme Court and multiple High Court precedents. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and CAT benches within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Central Administrative Tribunal benches outside NCT of Delhi, and the Supreme Court in analogous cases |
| Overrules | Set aside Central Administrative Tribunal’s Orders dated 17.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 in respect of GDS pension counting |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reaffirms that service as a Gramin Dak Sevak (or similar Extra Departmental Agent) cannot be counted towards qualifying service for government pension upon subsequent absorption as a regular postal employee.
- The Delhi High Court expressly applies the Supreme Court’s binding authority (Gandiba Behera) and sets aside contrary orders by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
- The status of GDS as a holder of “civil post” does not imply entitlement to pensionary benefits unless specifically provided by statute/rule.
- Recommendations or reports (such as the Talwar Committee) and principles like “equal pay for equal work” do not override explicit statutory exclusions relating to pension for GDS service.
- Any claims for regularisation or parity in pay/allowances with regular postal employees for GDS are not entertained.
- Practitioners should avoid relying on prior CAT orders (now overruled) for arguments regarding pension counting for GDS service.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court examined the legal framework governing the service and pension of Gramin Dak Sevaks, specifically Rules 4 (1964 Rules) and 6 (2011 Rules), which unequivocally bar GDSs from being entitled to pension.
- The judgment reviewed a spectrum of Supreme Court authority (including Vinod Kumar Saxena, P.K. Rajamma, Chetram v. Jeet Singh, D.S. Nakara, Gandiba Behera, Union of India v. Registrar) and found that while GDSs may hold a “civil post,” their service is governed separately and does not confer automatic pension rights.
- Reliance on broader principles, such as “equal pay for equal work” and constitutional protections, was found to be inapplicable where express statutory bars and distinct service rules exist.
- The Supreme Court in Gandiba Behera was held to be dispositive: service as GDS cannot be added/merged with regular service for pension calculations; absence of specific legal provision precludes such counting.
- The court noted that neither executive notifications, committee recommendations, nor factual distinctions regarding hours/nature of service overcome this legal bar.
- Tribunal orders which struck down Rule 6 and granted such benefits were explicitly set aside.
- The Rajasthan and Madras High Court authorities were cited as persuasive in confirming the same principle.
- The court concluded that the current legal position is settled against extension of pension benefits for GDS service unless and until the legislature or executive amends the relevant rules.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The issue is covered by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gandiba Behera and Paras Ram, and High Courts’ rulings in O. Ramachandran and Trilok Chand Jain.
- No legal provision allows GDS service to be counted as qualifying service for pension.
- The Tribunal’s orders granting pension benefits and striking down Rule 6 of the 2011 Rules are unsustainable.
Respondent
- Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Saxena held GDSs are holders of a civil post; thus, they are entitled to pension and counting of prior service.
- Past service as GDS should be counted for Old Pension Scheme if regularised; implementation order in one case was already given.
- Recommendations of the Talwar Committee support pension entitlement for GDSs.
- GDSs perform similar (or even more) duties as regular employees — “equal pay for equal work” applies.
- The exclusion of GDSs from regular service benefits is discriminatory; some GDSs work more than 5 hours a day and cover great distances.
- Reliance on D.S. Nakara to argue pension is not a grace or bounty.
- Rule 3A(iii) (requiring alternative income) and Rule 3A(v) (excluding from civil services) are arbitrary and unenforceable.
- Gandiba Behera does not apply as respondents were not parties, and Supreme Court precedents not fully considered therein.
Factual Background
The dispute arose when former Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs), some of whom were subsequently absorbed as regular Group ‘D’ or ‘C’ staff in the Postal Department, claimed that their period of service as GDS should be counted towards pension eligibility under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. They challenged the rules excluding GDSs from pension benefits and sought parity in pay and regularisation, relying on their role as “civil post” holders. The Central Administrative Tribunal had previously granted some of these claims, which were then challenged by the Union of India. The Delhi High Court was called to decide the legal permissibility of counting GDS service for pension following regularisation.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 6 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011: Explicitly bars GDSs from pension, providing only for ex-gratia gratuity or other payments as decided by the government.
- Rule 4 of the Post and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Services) Rules, 1964: Similarly bars GDSs from pensionary benefits.
- Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: Define qualifying service for pension, and do not include GDS service unless specifically provided.
- The Court found no provision of law or administrative circular authorising the counting of GDS service towards qualifying service for regular government pension, despite the “civil post” nomenclature.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions are indicated. Judgment delivered jointly by both judges (Navin Chawla, Madhu Jain, JJ) with a unified reasoning.
Procedural Innovations
- The Delhi High Court consolidated multiple writ petitions with similar facts and legal issues into a single common judgment for efficiency and consistency.
- No new procedural rule or innovation was created affecting locus, maintainability, or burden of proof.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment expressly affirms and applies established Supreme Court precedent (Gandiba Behera).