Army Postal Officers Can’t Take VRS Without Repatriation to Civil Department”: Delhi High Court Dismisses Claim for Ex-Serviceman Benefits

“The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of MOD OM dated 16 May 2017 or DOT OM dated 5 September 1989… as Rule 48, not 48-A, governs such voluntary retirement” - In a pivotal ruling on 24 March 2025, the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, dismissed a plea filed by Lt. Col. Shaji Joseph (Retd.), challenging the denial of ex-serviceman status and military retirement benefits following his voluntary retirement from the Army Postal Service (APS). The Court upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision, holding that an APS officer cannot seek voluntary retirement without first being repatriated to his parent department, in this case, the Department of Posts, as per the governing Army Instructions and pension rules.

  “Voluntary Retirement Cannot Be Taken from APS Without Repatriation”: Tribunal’s View Affirmed

 The petitioner, originally a Postal Assistant with the Department of

Posts, was on deputation to the APS since 1988, rising to the rank of Lt. Colonel under a temporary commission. In 2017, he applied for voluntary retirement directly from the APS, invoking Rule 48-A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and sought ex-serviceman benefits, pension, gratuity, and ECHS and canteen entitlements.

 However, the authorities later cancelled the initial sanction order and issued a revised order treating him as repatriated to the postal department before retirement, thereby denying him military pensionary status and associated entitlements.  

The High Court upheld this position, observing:

“There is no provision for voluntary retirement from the Army… The only provision for retirement directly from APS is when the officer attains the age of superannuation. The petitioner’s case does not fall under that category.”

 Rule 67 and MOD/DoT Oms Don’t Apply When Retirement Is Not Under Rule 48  

A central plank of the petitioner’s argument was that he was entitled to retirement benefits under Rule 67 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, as supplemented by MOD Office Memorandum dated 16 May 2017 and the Department of Telecom’s OM dated 5 September 1989.  

However, the Court clarified that these instruments were specifically linked to Rule 48, which governs retirement after 30 years of qualifying service. In contrast, the petitioner had sought retirement under Rule 48A, which applies after 20 years.  

“It is the petitioner’s admitted case that he had completed only 28-29 years of service… As such, he would not fall within the ambit of Rule 48,” the Court emphasized.

 It further ruled:

“De hors the DOT OM and MOD OM, no favourable right can enure to the petitioner solely on the basis of Rule 67… The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of MOD OM dated 16 May 2017 or the DOT OM dated 5 September 1989.”

  “Even If an Error Was Committed, It Could Be Corrected”

 The Court also rejected the contention that the Army or Posts department was bound by their earlier sanctioning of VRS directly from APS. It held that initial approval granted in violation of the law can be rectified, especially when there is no statutory right to such retirement route.

 Citing the Tribunal’s view, the Court said:

 “Even if the Department of Posts had initially wrongly approved the application… it cannot be said that the wrong committed should be allowed to be perpetuated.”  

The High Court underscored that after identifying discrepancies, corrective action was taken by issuing fresh orders repatriating the officer before permitting retirement.

  “No Ex-Serviceman Benefits Without Repatriation and Retirement Under Army Rules”

Rebutting the petitioner’s claim to ex-serviceman status, ECHS membership, and canteen access, the Court reiterated the rule:

 “Since he was only on deputation to APS, he is also not entitled either for ‘Ex-serviceman’ status or for ‘Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS)’.”

 The Bench also dismissed the demand for interest on delayed pension payments, noting that the Department of Posts had processed and offered provisional pension, but the petitioner refused to accept it.

The Delhi High Court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to retire directly from APS under Rule 48-A without returning to the parent department. As a result, his pension and other retirement benefits must be processed by the Department of Posts, not the Army Postal Service, and he is ineligible for military benefits such as ECHS and canteen access.

 “The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no orders as to costs,” the Court held.

 Date of Decision: 24 March 2025