IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9273 of 2009 SARGUN DAS, son of Late Biro Das, resident of Village – Sajaur, PS Sahkund (Sajaur), District Bhagalpur ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Govt. of India, Ministry of Post Offices, India, New Delhi 2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur 3. The Post Master, Bhagalpur Head Office, Bhagalpur ….Respondents ----------- 04- 29.3.2010 Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh for the respondents. This writ petition has been preferred by the applicant of OA No.292 of 2006 (Sargun Das vs. The Union of India & Ors.), and is aggrieved by the order dated 5.5.2006 (Annexure 6), whereby the original application has been rejected. The learned Tribunal has upheld the order of the authorities declining to admit the petitioner to pension. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioner’s date of birth is 2.1.1944. He was engaged as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA, in short) on 26.3.1964. He was from 26.3.1964 to 1996 engaged on prescribed allowance, and was not the holder of civil post. He was confirmed in the service in 1996, and superannuated on substantive assignment with effect from 31.1.2004. The post- retirement benefits admissible to the petitioner were paid to him. He was, however, denied monthly pension leading to OA 2 No.376 of 2004, which was disposed of by order dated 21.5.2005, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to consider the petitioner’s claim afresh, and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. On reconsideration of the matter, the respondent authorities rejected the petitioner’s claim for monthly pension leading to the present OA No.292 of 2006. It appears on a perusal of the materials on record that rule -13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules prescribes the eligibility criteria which would entitle an employee of the Central Government to avail of the benefits of monthly pension. In substance, it provides that the employee must function either on substantive or in officiating or temporary capacity for a period of ten years. The petitioner has obviously completed nearly eight years as a result of which he was not entitled to monthly pension. We do not find fault with the action of the respondent authorities and that of the learned Tribunal. 3. We do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl