IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6350 of 2009 CHAMARI GOPE, son of Late Jugal Gope, Resident of Village & P.O. Islampur, Mohalla Budha Nagar, PS Islampur, District Nalanda ….Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary-cum-DG, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna 3. The Director of Postal Services O/o the Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna 4. The Director Accounts (Postal) Exhibition Road, Patna 5. The Superintendent of Post Office, Nalanda Division, Biharsharif 6. The Post Master, Islampur Sub Post Office, Nalanda Division Biharsharif …..Respondents ----------- 05- 4.2.2010 Heard Mr. Rudal Prasad for the petitioner, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure 1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in OA No.169 of 2006 (Chamari Gope vs. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the original application for direction to the respondent authorities to grant post-retirement benefits to the petitioner has been rejected. He has, however, been given the liberty to file representation for consideration of his case for payment of gratuity. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had joined the Postal Department, Government of India, in 1968-69 as contingent paid Night Chowkidar. He continued as such for a good length of period and was by order dated 28.1.94, given temporary status of a casual labour. By 2 order dated 14.10.1996, he was treated at par with Grade-D employee with effect from 14.10.96. He superannuated with effect from 31.12.2005. Having been denied the post-retirement dues, he approached the Tribunal which has been rejected by the impugned order, operative portion of which is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- “12. Before we part with, we may observe that although there is no pleadings in the OA about the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicants at Bar that the applicants were entitled for terminal gratuity even if they were not entitled to pension. If so, they are given the opportunity to approach the department and the respondents are directed to consider the same in accordance with rules by means of a speaking order. No cost.” It appears to us that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to satisfy the Tribunal, nor any evidence has been produced before us, to show that the services of the petitioner had ever been regularized. In that view of the matter, Pension Rules do not apply to him. We, therefore, do not fine any ground for interference with the impugned order. 3. This application is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) ( Kishore K Mandal ) mrl