The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera (2021), holding that service rendered as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) cannot be counted towards the qualifying service for pension after absorption into regular posts in the Postal Department. The ruling sets aside contrary Central Administrative Tribunal orders and aligns the Delhi High Court with binding Supreme Court precedent, clarifying that GDSs are excluded from pensionary benefits as per prevailing statutory rules.
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 | Impugned Tribunal orders dated 17.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 set aside; Tribunal order dated 08.08.2019 upheld; Petitions disposed of. |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA, HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Delhi and strongly persuasive for similar matters |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court’s rulings in Gandiba Behera (2021); sets aside Central Administrative Tribunal orders granting relief |
| Type of Law | Service Law, Pension, Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether the period of service rendered as GDS can be counted towards qualifying service for pension after appointment to regular posts |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held, following binding Supreme Court authority, that services rendered as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) cannot be reckoned for the purpose of qualifying service required for pension under the rules governing regular postal department employees. Despite the GDS being a civil post, the employment conditions and statutory rules clearly differentiate GDS service from regular civil service, particularly excluding them from pensionary benefits. The existence of Tribunal and High Court directions to the contrary cannot survive in light of the Supreme Court’s reasoned interpretation of the applicable rules. It is clarified that there is no statutory or legal basis for importing GDS tenure into regular service for pension calculation. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Union of India v. Gandiba Behera (2021) 14 SCC 786, Paras Ram (Supreme Court, Civil Appeals 12353-12354/2016), O. Ramachandran v. UOI (Madras HC, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 33686), Trilok Chand Jain (Rajasthan HC, 2025:RJ-JP:8544-DB), Vinod Kumar Saxena v. UOI (2016) 9 SCC 352, P.K. Rajamma (1977) 3 SCC 94, Chetram v. Jeet Singh (2008) 14 SCC 427, D.S. Nakara v. UOI (1983) 1 SCC 305, UOI v. Atul Shukla (2014) 10 SCC 432, Prem Singh v. State of U.P. (2019) 10 SCC 516 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Detailed reliance on Gandiba Behera (Supreme Court), which distinguishes GDS service from regular service for pension purposes, and holds that statutory rules exclude GDSs from pension entitlement. Court also refers to other High Courts following this rule, and Supreme Court’s approach to legislative intent and administrative instructions in service jurisprudence. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondents were initially engaged as EDAs/GDSs in rural post offices, later absorbed as regular Group ‘D’/Group ‘C’ staff. They sought to have their GDS service counted towards qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Tribunal granted relief, which led to these writ petitions; UOI maintained that GDS service is not pensionable as per statutory rules. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within NCT of Delhi; Central Administrative Tribunal (Delhi Bench) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and benches of Central Administrative Tribunal in similar service law disputes nationwide |
| Overrules | Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench orders dated 17.11.2016 and 01.12.2016 granting pension counting GDS service |
| Distinguishes | Early Tribunal decisions granting pension based on natural justice or alternative legal grounds |
| Follows | Supreme Court decisions: Union of India v. Gandiba Behera (2021), Paras Ram, Supreme Court (2016); High Court of Madras (O. Ramachandran, 2016); High Court of Rajasthan (Trilok Chand Jain, 2025) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Delhi High Court now expressly holds that GDS service cannot be added to regular service for pension purposes in the absence of a statutory provision.
- Set aside earlier Central Administrative Tribunal orders that allowed partial or full counting of GDS service for pensionary benefits or regularisation.
- Reiterates that even though GDSs are civil post holders, statutory rules (specifically Rule 6 of 2011) bar pension entitlement.
- Confirms Supreme Court’s Gandiba Behera precedent is binding and determinative on this issue for all similar claims.
- Any argument based on equity or recommendations of committees (e.g., Talwar Committee) will not prevail in the face of clear Supreme Court interpretation of statutory rules.
- Claims for parity in pay or regularisation for GDSs—based solely on analogy with regular postal employees—were also rejected, and neither “equal pay for equal work” nor regularisation principles override the express rules.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the legal issue—whether service as a GDS can be included for pension qualification in regular posts—was directly addressed by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Gandiba Behera.
- Gandiba Behera analysed all pertinent Supreme Court precedents (including P.K. Rajamma, Vinod Kumar Saxena, and D.S. Nakara) and concluded that, despite GDSs being civil post holders, statutory rules exclude them from pensionary coverage.
- Court clarified that while GDSs may perform substantive work, their employment is part time, not regular, and governed by different rules, notably Rule 6 of 2011 which expressly denies pension entitlement.
- The Court compared this statutory exclusion to prior work-charged employee scenarios, distinguishing the employment characteristics and rejecting analogies based on minimum service or continuity of employment.
- The arguments for “equal pay for equal work,” legitimate expectation, or regularisation were found unavailing given the statutory framework and binding Supreme Court interpretation.
- Reliance on recommendations (such as the Talwar Committee) or rules of equity was explicitly overruled by the statutory exclusions and clear Supreme Court precedent.
- The Delhi High Court set aside conflicting Tribunal and High Court decisions, aligning itself with the Supreme Court and High Courts of Madras and Rajasthan.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Cited Supreme Court decisions (Gandiba Behera, Paras Ram) and High Court precedents (O. Ramachandran, Trilok Chand Jain) to argue the issue is no longer res integra.
- Asserted that statutory rules bar pension entitlement for GDSs, and Tribunal orders granting such relief cannot be sustained.
- Submitted that previous Tribunal orders should be set aside and the impugned order denying pension to GDSs should be upheld.
Respondent
- Argued that, as per Supreme Court (Vinod Kumar Saxena, P.K. Rajamma, Chetram), GDSs are civil post holders and should be entitled to have their service counted for pension.
- Contended that restricting benefits despite “equal work” is discriminatory; relied on D.S. Nakara and “equal pay for equal work” cases.
- Cited implementation of certain Tribunal orders for specific individuals (e.g., Vinod Kumar Saxena) as evidence of entitlement.
- Relied on Talwar Committee recommendations and Supreme Court/High Court judgments supporting regularisation and parity with regular employees.
- Challenged the practical validity of “5 hours per day” rules and other exclusions as arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights.
Factual Background
The respondents were initially engaged as Extra-Departmental Agents (EDAs), later redesignated as Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDSs), in the rural postal network under the Post & Telegraphs Department. Their service conditions changed over the years—first governed by the 1964 Rules, then the 2001 Rules, and finally the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Some respondents were later absorbed into regular posts (Group ‘D’/Group ‘C’), while others retired as GDSs. They claimed that their prior GDS service should be counted towards qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Central Administrative Tribunal initially allowed such relief, but the Union of India challenged those orders before the High Court.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed and applied the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, especially Rule 6, which states that GDSs are not entitled to pension but only ex-gratia gratuity or other payments as decided by the government.
- Rule 3A(i) limits GDS daily duty to five hours; Rule 3A(v) states they are outside regular civil services.
- The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 were considered; the Court found no provision therein allowing past GDS service to be counted towards “qualifying service” for pension after absorption as a regular employee.
- The Court emphasised statutory exclusions override claims based on equity, recommendations, or constitutional provisions such as Article 14 when the rules are explicit and have been interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; judgment was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations were introduced or noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly applies and follows binding Supreme Court pronouncements, notably Union of India v. Gandiba Behera (2021), reaffirming the law and aligning the Delhi High Court with national jurisprudence on the issue.