The Delhi High Court reaffirms that service rendered as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) cannot be factored in for qualifying service for pension or regularisation in regular postal posts, following the binding Supreme Court precedent in Gandiba Behera (2021) 14 SCC 786. This judgment sets aside Central Administrative Tribunal orders to the contrary, providing clear binding authority for all similar cases involving GDS service and pension entitlement in the postal sector.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | W.P.(C)/3569/2017 of BUTA RAM AND ORS Vs UOI AND ORS |
| CNR | DLHC011521952017 |
| Date of Registration | 24-04-2017 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Petitions disposed of, impugned orders set aside in part, upheld in part |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Bench | Division Bench: NAVIN CHAWLA, J. and MADHU JAIN, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service law (Public Employment; Pension; Government Posts) |
| Questions of Law | Whether service rendered as GDS can be counted for pension or regularisation in regular Group ‘D’/Group ‘C’ postal posts. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held, following binding Supreme Court precedent, that service rendered as GDS/Extra-Departmental Agent cannot be counted for qualifying service for pension or for regularisation in the regular postal cadre. The 2011 Rules (Rule 6), which exclude GDS service from pension entitlements, do not violate constitutional or statutory protections, and recommendations such as those of the Talwar Committee cannot override the specific service rules. The natural corollary of the GDS status as “civil post holders” is limited by express statutory rules differentiating them from regular civil servants. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
Detailed reliance on Gandiba Behera (Supreme Court) holding that GDS service is distinct in its part-time, non-regular service terms, and no legal provision exists for counting GDS service towards pensionary service for regular postal employees. Other references to judgments addressing “equal pay for equal work,” constitutional protections, and Talwar Committee recommendations, which were distinguished or held inapplicable due to specific statutory regimes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioners/respondents were originally engaged as EDAs/GDSs in rural postal offices; their service was regulated successively under 1964, 2001, and 2011 Rules, all of which expressly excluded pension entitlements. Some were later absorbed in regular posts and sought pension counting GDS service. CAT orders granted partial relief, which was challenged. Supreme Court in Gandiba Behera and related cases had ruled against counting GDS service for pension. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Delhi; Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and CAT Benches; offered as strong persuasive authority elsewhere in India |
| Overrules | CAT Principal Bench Orders dated 17.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 in O.A. Nos. 749/2015, 3540/2015, 613/2015, and 240/2015 |
| Distinguishes | Does not accept the reasoning in judgments that allowed counting of GDS service for pension (notably Dattappa, Karnataka High Court) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that GDS service cannot be added to regular service for purposes of pension or regularisation, regardless of duration or similarity of work.
- Overrules Tribunal decisions that had struck down Rule 6 of the 2011 Rules as unconstitutional.
- The adoption of recommendations from committees (like Talwar Committee) cannot override express statutory rules governing GDS terms.
- Holds that the Supreme Court’s Gandiba Behera judgment is binding even if petitioners/respondents were not parties to the earlier Supreme Court case.
- Clarifies that labelling GDSs as “civil post holders” does not entitle them to parity in pay, pension, or regularisation in absence of statutory backing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The core question—whether GDS/EDA service counts towards pension in regular posts—was fully answered by the Supreme Court in Gandiba Behera, which is binding.
- Gandiba Behera carefully analyzed service rules, part-time nature of GDS work, and lack of any rule or circular enabling combination of GDS and regular services for pension.
- The Supreme Court also distinguished earlier judgments cited for ‘equal pay’ and for status as ‘civil post holder,’ holding these did not overcome the statutory bar.
- The High Court noted that even pending writs (including the instant one) did not affect applicability of the statute and the Supreme Court’s reasoning.
- Further reliance was placed on subsequent High Courts (Madras, Rajasthan) applying the Gandiba Behera rule, none of which found a basis in law to count GDS service for pension in regular posts.
- Arguments for parity based on similarity of work, undertaking of additional hours, or Talwar Committee recommendations were expressly rejected as insufficient to override statutory rules.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The issue is covered by Supreme Court judgments (Gandiba Behera, Paras Ram), which bar counting GDS service for pension.
- Tribunal orders granting GDSs such benefits are unsustainable.
- Reliance on judgments from other High Courts (Madras, Rajasthan) that also did not allow such benefits.
Respondent
- Cited Supreme Court’s declaration in Vinod Kumar Saxena that GDSs are holders of “civil posts.”
- Argued that by this, GDSs should get pension and counting of service, citing P.K. Rajamma, Chetram, and D.S. Nakara.
- Referred to implementation of such benefits in some specific cases, recommendations of the Talwar Committee, and parity in workplace duties.
- Contended that work hours are understated in rules and parity with regular employees is justified under ‘equal pay for equal work.’
- Criticised requirements for alternative income and contractual language in the rules as unfair and unconstitutional.
Factual Background
The respondents were initially employed as Extra-Departmental Agents (EDAs), later renamed as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs), to serve rural postal offices governed under the 1964, 2001, and 2011 rules. While some GDSs were subsequently absorbed into regular Group ‘D’ or ‘C’ posts (and thus became regular employees under the New Pension Scheme), disputes arose regarding whether their past GDS service should count for pension benefits under the older, more generous scheme. The Central Administrative Tribunal granted partial relief, which the Union of India challenged. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Gandiba Behera, issued during the pendency of these proceedings, provided binding clarification that GDS service may not be counted for this purpose.
Statutory Analysis
- Rule 6 of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011: Explicitly bars pension entitlement for GDSs, allowing only ex-gratia gratuity or other payment as decided by the government.
- These rules distinguish GDS service from regular government service for pension purposes, regardless of absorption subsequently into the regular cadre.
- The court noted that neither the 1964 nor 2011 rules have any provision for adding GDS service to regular service for pension qualification.
- Constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 16, 21) were argued but rejected as inapplicable given specific statutory rules.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There is no dissent; both judges concurred in the reasoning and conclusion. The bench expressly agreed with the Supreme Court’s logic and rejected arguments for reading down the rules or overriding them by recommendations or principles of equity.
Procedural Innovations
- The court disposed of multiple connected writ petitions involving different factual backgrounds in a single, common judgment due to similarity of issues.
- No new procedural innovations or guidelines were articulated in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed: Follows Supreme Court’s ruling in Gandiba Behera (2021) 14 SCC 786; previous CAT decisions explicitly overruled in accordance with binding precedent.