Case Background
The case concerns two long-serving postal employees from Bhagalpur Postal Division who started their careers in the 1970s as Gramin Dak Sevaks, also called extra departmental employees.
The husband of the original applicant in the first matter and the applicant in the second matter were initially appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak/Extra Departmental Stamp Vendor in Bhagalpur Postal Division during 1974–1976.
Later, the postal authorities began filling Group-D vacancies for the years 2000–2003 from among such extra departmental employees, on the basis of seniority. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting was scheduled for November 2003, but it was not held at that time.
Because of this delay by the authorities, both applicants were actually promoted to Group-D cadre only on 26.04.2005, though the vacancies themselves related to the year 2003. Subsequently, they were further promoted to the Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) cadre.
The husband of the original applicant in the first case superannuated on 31.01.2016 and later passed away on 09.08.2021. The original applicant in the second case retired on 31.12.2018. After retirement, their pension was treated under the New Pension Scheme, which came into force from 01.01.2004.
Aggrieved by denial of benefits under the Old Pension Scheme, the original applicants approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, by filing O.A. No. 050/00947/2022 and O.A. No. 050/00948/2022.
Before the Tribunal, they sought directions to the postal authorities to calculate their pensionable service from the year 2003, the year of vacancy against which they had been promoted, and to grant them old pension and other pensionary benefits accordingly.
By judgment dated 14.01.2025, the Tribunal accepted their plea and directed that both applicants be covered under the Old Pension Scheme. The Union of India and postal authorities challenged that order in the Patna High Court through Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14291 of 2025 and Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14268 of 2025.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench of the Patna High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava, heard both writ petitions together, since they arose out of the same Tribunal judgment and involved identical facts.
The core issue before the Court was simple but important: whether these two postal employees should be governed by the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme which took effect from 01.01.2004.
On behalf of the petitioners, i.e., the Union of India and postal authorities, learned counsel argued that the original applicants could not claim the Old Pension Scheme. The argument was that they had joined the regular Group-D/MTS cadre only in the year 2005, long after the Old Pension Scheme had closed on 31.12.2003.
According to the petitioners, even though the applicants were earlier engaged as Gramin Dak Sevaks/Extra Departmental Stamp Vendors in the 1970s, their status as regular central government employees in Group-D/MTS began only in 2005. Therefore, they should fall under the New Pension Scheme which applies to central government employees entering service on or after 01.01.2004.
On the other side, the original applicants had earlier argued before the Central Administrative Tribunal that they were promoted to Group-D/MTS against vacancies of the year 2003, but the promotions were given belatedly in 2005 only because of lapses by the authorities. They contended there was no delay or fault on their part, and that they should not suffer loss of pension benefits because the Department failed to hold the DPC in time.
They maintained that for the purpose of deciding whether the Old or New Pension Scheme applied, the crucial factor should be the year of vacancy—2003—against which they were promoted, not the delayed date on which the Department actually issued promotion orders in 2005.
To support their stand, the applicants before the Tribunal had relied on two key precedents. The first was the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. N. Premachandran vs. State of Kerela, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 245. The second was a Division Bench judgment of the Patna High Court dated 28.08.2020 in CWJC No. 17285 of 2018 (The Union of India & Others vs. Uma Kant Jha).
The Tribunal accepted their plea and followed the judgment in Uma Kant Jha. In that earlier case, a similar issue arose regarding an Extra Departmental Branch Postmaster who entered postal service in 1976, was promoted to MTS against 2003 vacancies but actually joined regular cadre on 26.04.2005, and whose pension had been fixed under the New Pension Scheme.
In Uma Kant Jha, the Tribunal had held, and the Patna High Court had affirmed, that since the employee had entered central government service long before 01.01.2004 as an extra departmental employee, and was promoted in 2005 against 2003 vacancies, he could not be treated as a post-2004 entrant for pension purposes. Therefore he was entitled to Old Pension Scheme benefits.
The Division Bench in Uma Kant Jha had also referred to another Division Bench decision in C.W.J.C. No. 17204 of 2015 (The Union of India & Ors. vs. Mukti Prasad Yadav), reported in PLJR 2016(2) 480. In that case, casual labourers who had acquired temporary status before 01.01.2004 but were regularised later were nonetheless held entitled to Old Pension Scheme benefits, as they were already “in service” before the cut-off date.
In the present matter, the Patna High Court carefully examined whether there was any distinction between the facts of these writ petitions and those in Uma Kant Jha. The Bench specifically put a query to the learned counsel for the petitioners asking whether the respondents’ case could be distinguished from that earlier judgment.
The petitioners’ counsel, in response to the Court’s question, accepted that there was no difference and that the present cases were fully covered by the judgment in Uma Kant Jha.
Having obtained this clarification, the Court turned to apply the legal position already settled in Uma Kant Jha and Mukti Prasad Yadav. The Court noted that the New Pension Scheme, effective from 01.01.2004, is applicable to central government employees who enter service after 01.01.2004.
In these cases, the employees entered the service of the central government between 1974 and 1976, albeit as Gramin Dak Sevaks/extra departmental employees rather than as regular Group-D staff. They were later promoted on 26.04.2005, on the recommendation of the DPC, against vacancies of the year 2003.
Given this, the Court held that their entry into central government service cannot be treated as having occurred after 01.01.2004. The fact that their promotion orders were delayed until 2005 due to departmental lapses could not be used to deprive them of pension rights, especially when there was no lapse on their part.
The Court agreed that although service rendered as Extra Departmental employee is not itself pensionable, the question of whether the Old or New Pension Scheme applies depends on when the employee entered government service, not merely on the date of regularisation or promotion. Once an employee was already in service before 01.01.2004, subsequent regularisation against earlier vacancies does not push them into the New Pension Scheme.
On this reasoning, the Bench concluded that both employees were entitled to be included under the Old Pension Scheme, and their pension and pensionary benefits must be fixed accordingly.
The High Court held that the issue was “squarely covered” by the earlier Division Bench judgment in Uma Kant Jha, where the facts and circumstances were “more or less identical.” It also took note of the Supreme Court’s ruling and the line of decisions relied upon by the Tribunal.
Finding no error in the Tribunal’s judgment dated 14.01.2025 in O.A. No. 050/00947/2022 and O.A. No. 050/00948/2022, the Patna High Court dismissed both writ petitions filed by the Union of India and other postal authorities as being devoid of merit.
As a result, the Tribunal’s directions to include the two applicants in the Old Pension Scheme and to fix their pension and pensionary benefits accordingly remain fully in force.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for thousands of Gramin Dak Sevaks and other extra departmental postal workers who later enter the regular establishment.
Many such employees begin working for the postal department long before 01.01.2004 but get promoted or regularised only years later due to administrative delay. Departments often try to place them under the New Pension Scheme on the ground that their regular appointment is post-2004.
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that for deciding between Old and New Pension Schemes, the key is when the person actually entered government service, even if in a non-regular or extra departmental capacity, and whether promotions were against pre-2004 vacancies.
The Court also made it clear that employees should not be made to suffer pension loss because of lapses or delay by the authorities in holding DPCs or issuing promotion orders, especially when vacancies existed earlier.
For retired postal workers and their families in Bihar and across India, this decision gives strong support to claims for Old Pension Scheme benefits where they entered service before 01.01.2004 or were promoted against pre-2004 vacancies but got regularised late.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Are postal employees who entered service as Gramin Dak Sevaks in 1974–1976 but were promoted to Group-D/MTS in 2005 against 2003 vacancies governed by the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme effective from 01.01.2004?
Answer: The Patna High Court held they are governed by the Old Pension Scheme, because they entered central government service long before 01.01.2004 and their promotions in 2005 were against vacancies of 2003, so their entry cannot be treated as after 01.01.2004.
Cases Cited by the Court
- P. N. Premachandran vs. State of Kerela, (2004) 1 SCC 245.
- The Union of India & Others vs. Uma Kant Jha, CWJC No. 17285 of 2018, judgment dated 28.08.2020 (Patna High Court).
- The Union of India & Ors. vs. Mukti Prasad Yadav, C.W.J.C. No. 17204 of 2015, reported in PLJR 2016(2) 480 (Patna High Court), as quoted in Uma Kant Jha.
Case Details
Case Numbers: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14291 of 2025; Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14268 of 2025.
Case Title: The Union of India & Ors. vs. Nawal Kishor Thakur; The Union of India & Ors. vs. Panchanand Singh.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah; Hon’ble Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava.
Date of Judgment: 25.11.2025.
Citation: 2026 (1) PLJR 41.
Advocates: For the petitioners (Union of India and postal authorities): Mr. Radhika Raman, Sr. CGC; Mr. Ram Tujabh Singh, CGC. Names of counsel for respondents are not mentioned in the judgment text.
Nature of the Case: Writ petitions under Civil Writ Jurisdiction challenging a common order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, in O.A. No. 050/00947/2022 and O.A. No. 050/00948/2022 relating to applicability of Old Pension Scheme vs. New Pension Scheme for postal employees.
Outcome: Both writ petitions dismissed; Tribunal’s direction to extend Old Pension Scheme benefits to the applicants upheld.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
