“Voluntary Retirement from APS Without Repatriation to his parent departmentImpermissible”: Delhi High Court Declines Relief, Finds Rule 67 CCS (Pension) Rules Inapplicable to VRS Cases
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Delhi High Court has held that an Army Postal Service (APS) officer, serving on deputation from the Department of Posts, cannot seek voluntary retirement directly from the APS without first being repatriated to his parent department. The Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul dismissed the writ petition challenging the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision, which had declined to grant the petitioner retirement benefits under Rule 67 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, on the ground that the provision was inapplicable to cases of voluntary retirement.
The Court observed that the petitioner, who was serving on deputation and holding a temporary commission in the APS, had not completed 30 years of qualifying service to attract the applicability of Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which was a prerequisite for invoking the benefit of the Department of Telecommunications’ Office Memorandum dated 5 September 1989. The High Court recorded that the petitioner had, at best, served for approximately 28–29 years at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.
The Court upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning that the pensionary benefits were to be processed by the Department of Posts, not the APS, and held that the MOD Office Memorandum dated 16 May 2017 and the DOT OM dated 5 September 1989 could not be invoked in the present case.
The petitioner, Lt. Col. Shaji Joseph (Retd.), initially joined the Department of Posts in August 1985 as a Short Duty Postal Assistant. He was deputed to the Army Postal Service on 28 December 1988 and later obtained a temporary commission in the APS, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel as of 1 May 2010.
On 21 April 2017, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement from service under Rule 48-A(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, with effect from 1 August 2017. His application stated that he sought to retire directly from the APS “without repatriation to the parent Department.” This application was addressed to the Superintendent of Post Offices, Idukki Division, acknowledging his civil lien in the Department of Posts.
The CCS (Pension) Rules were made applicable to officers on temporary commission in the APS as per Clause 6(a) of Annexure-A to Army Instruction 29/85, which stated: “For service pension, officer will be governed by civil rules.”
In response to queries regarding such voluntary retirement cases, the Ministry of Defence issued an Office Memorandum dated 16 May 2017, which referred to the Government of India decision under Rule 67 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and stated: “The VRS cases of Non-gazetted DoP personnel on deputation with APS may be dealt as per the provision of the GOI decision…” The relevant GOI decision was contained in the Department of Telecom’s OM dated 5 September 1989, issued under Rule 67(1), which designated the Officer-in-Charge, P&T Admn Cell, Kamptee as the Head of Office for processing pension benefits of non-gazetted DoT personnel retiring from APS.
On 23 June 2017, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Idukki, accepted the petitioner’s voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A, effective from 1 August 2017. Consequently, the Additional Director General, APS, issued a communication on 12 July 2017 approving the relinquishment of the petitioner’s temporary commission in the APS and his simultaneous voluntary retirement from the Department of Posts.
However, on 24 April 2018, the ADG, APS issued a new order cancelling the earlier order dated 12 July 2017 and instead approved the petitioner’s repatriation to the Department of Posts with effect from 30 July 2017. A further revised order dated 18 May 2018 changed the date of repatriation to 31 July 2017.
The petitioner approached the Armed Forces Tribunal in OA No. 1239/2018 seeking various reliefs, including a declaration that his retirement took effect from 1 August 2017 directly from APS, entitlement to all pensionary benefits from the APS under Rule 67, and recognition of ex-serviceman status and related entitlements.
The Tribunal dismissed the petition by its judgment dated 10 February 2022, holding that the retirement could not have been effected directly from APS, and pension benefits had to be processed by the parent department, i.e., the Department of Posts.
The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, observing that the petitioner continued to hold civil lien in the Department of Posts throughout and had addressed his voluntary retirement application to that office. The Court stated that “even though he was on deputation with the APS since 27 December 1988, he was still holding civil lien as a Postal Assistant in the Department of Posts.”
It recorded that although the Superintendent of Post Offices had accepted the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement, subsequent discrepancies were noted by the Integrated Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence (Army). The Army objected to the simultaneous relinquishment of temporary commission and retirement without a time gap, and noted that “VRS is granted from the Department of Posts.”
Referring to para 9(3)(d) of Annexure-A to AI 29/85, the Court stated that “the only provision of retiring directly from the APS without reversion to the Department of Posts is on attaining the age of compulsory retirement in the Army.”
The Court recorded that the initial order of 12 July 2017 was cancelled and replaced with subsequent orders repatriating the petitioner to the Department of Posts prior to his retirement, and that “for practical purposes, his pensionary benefits were to be processed by the parent department.”
On the petitioner’s reliance on Rule 67 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the Court held that the term “retirement” in Rule 67 was not confined to retirement on superannuation. However, it found that the petitioner could not avail of Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules—required for application of the DOT OM dated 5 September 1989—as he had not completed 30 years of qualifying service. The Court stated: “He joined service with the APS on 28 December 1988, and applied for voluntary retirement on 1 August 2017. As such, he would not fall within the ambit of Rule 48.”
Consequently, the Court held: “That being so, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the DOT OM dated 5 September 1989 and, consequently, of para 2 of the MOD OM dated 16 May 2017 either.”
It was also recorded that “de hors the DOT OM dated 5 September 1989 and the MOD OM dated 16 May 2017, no favourable right can enure to the petitioner solely on the basis of Rule 67 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.”
The Court dismissed the writ petition and recorded: “For the aforesaid reasons, we find no cause to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the MOD OM dated 16 May 2017 or the DOT OM dated 5 September 1989.” No costs were imposed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra, Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Jitesh Vikram Srivastava, Senior Panel Counsel; Mr. Prajesh Vikram Srivastava, Advocate
Case Title: Lt. Col. Shaji Joseph (Retd.) v. Union of India and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1880-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 7446/2022
Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul
[Read/Download order]
