IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12301 of 2009 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY-CUM-D.G., DEPARTMENT OF POST,DAK BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA 3. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION,MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF POSTAL SERVICES, O/o THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, NORTHERN REGION, MUZAFFARPUR. 5. THE DIRECTOR ACCOUNTS (POSTAL), EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, PURNIA DIVISION, PURNIA. 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES, SUB-DIVISION KISHANGANJ. ---- PETITIONERS. Versus KANT LAL MANDAL,SON OF LATE CHATUR LAL MANDAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE & P.O. BALUAKALIA GANJ, VIA MADANPUR, DISTRICT ARARIA. ---- RESPONDENT ----------- 02 28.01.2010 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, for the petitioners. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 8th August 2008 ( Annexure-3), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A.No. 16 of 2007 ( Kant Lal Mandal Vrs. The union of India and ors), whereby the original application has been allowed. Relevant portion of the order is reproduced herein below: “7. I have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides. The DPC for promoting the applicant should have conducted in March, 1996 as per departmental guidelines and it could not have been conducted after 21.7.1996 when the applicant had completed 50 years. There is a tremendous lapse on the part of the respondents in this regard and they have conducted the DPC only on 27.9.1996, thereby causing immense life long hardship to the applicant. He is being now deprived of pension for being just short of few days of qualifying period. It is my considered view that the respondents cannot be allowed to play with the basic right of livelihood of their retired employees. The employee after working for 40 years in the 2 department[ out of which 9 years and 10 months is in a regular capacity] cannot be told at the end of service that pension will not be granted to him- although the official was not at fault for this in any way.” We agree with the reasoning assigned by the learned Tribunal. We are not inclined to interfere with the same. Writ petition is dismissed. Sym/ (S.K.Katriar,J) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)