JUDGMENT 1. The writ petition has been preferred as against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.345/2010 on 13th July, 2012. 2. The respondent-applicant preferred Original Application before the Tribunal for directing the petitioner-respondents to treat the training period as qualifying service and in pursuance thereof, pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits may be granted; and the petitioner-respondents may be directed to treat Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) during 1977-78 for qualifying service for pension with all consequential benefits. 3. The respondent-applicant submitted before the Tribunal that in pursuance of his selection as Postal Clerk in the Postal Department, he was sent for 15 days practical training vide letter dated 4.11.1970 and thereafter he was allowed to join as a Learner Clerk at Jalore LSG Post Office on 9.11.1970. Again, he was sent for two and half months training at Postal Training Centre, Baroda and on his successful completion of training, he was ordered to join as Temporary and Officiating Clerk at Jalore LSG SO vide letter dated 8.2.1971. Since he fell sick, he could join duty only on 13.3.1971, though the training was over on 28.2.1971. As a result, there was a gap of 12 days between completion of training and assumption of duties. He prayed for the relief of counting the training period as qualifying service and EOL during 1977-78 for qualifying service for pension. The Tribunal has granted the only relief of computation of treating the training period as qualifying service and rejected the relief of EOL during 1977-78 for qualifying service for pension. Aggrieved by the order treating the training period as qualifying service towards pensionary benefits, the Union of India has preferred the writ petition in this court. 4. Mr.V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India, has submitted that the training period could not have been counted towards qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, as there was gap of 12 days after completion of training period and joining as Clerk; the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law; however, he was unable to dispute that training period has to be counted ordinarily for the purpose of pensionary benefits as provided in Rule 22 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. S.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-applicant has supported the order passed by the C.A.T. and has submitted that though the applicant fell sick, even otherwise the place where he joined was away less than 1000 km., in such exigency, ten days' joining time is allowed and two days was transit time, as such, the period of training ought to have been counted towards the qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as provided in Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules of 1972; there is no illegality in the order passed by the C.A.T. and the Govt. of India's decisions, relied upon by the Tribunal. 6. We find no merit in the submission raised by Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India. Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules of 1972 clearly provides that the Government may, by order, decide whether the time spent by a Government servant undergoing training immediately before appointment to service under that Government can be counted as qualifying service by passing an appropriate order. By quoting the Government of India's decisions under Rule 22 of the aforesaid Rules of 1972, the Tribunal has made following discussion in para 10 of its order: "10. The Government of India decisions issued under this Rule, reads as follows: Government of India's Decisions (1) Pre-appointment training period counts as qualifying service - The Staff Side of the National Council (JCM) had suggested inter alia that the service rendered by an employee during the training period before his regular appointment to the grade may be treated as qualifying service for pension. 2. The request made by the Staff Side of the National Council (JCM) has been examined and it has now been decided that in respect of Groups 'C' and 'D' employees who are required to undergo departmental training relating to jobs before they are put on regular employment, training period may be treated as qualifying service for pension, if the training is followed immediately by an appointment. This benefit will be admissible to all Groups 'C' and 'D' employees even if the officers concerned are not given the scale of pay of the post but only a nominal allowance. 3. The Ministry of Finance etc. This benefit will be admissible to all Groups 'C' and 'D' employees even if the officers concerned are not given the scale of pay of the post but only a nominal allowance. 3. The Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring the above decision to the notice of all officers working under them including those in the Attached and Subordinate offices for their guidance. 4. These orders come into force with effect from 22nd December, 1983. 5. Benefit of these orders will be available to all those employees who retired on or after 22nd December, 1983. 6. No restriction is imposed on the admissibility of the above benefit to the employees who were recruited in 'C' and 'D' posts but retired from Groups 'A' and 'B' posts. (2) Treatment of the Interruption between training and regular appointment-Reference Decision (1) above, some of the Circles, etc. have raised a doubt about treating the period of interruption between training period and regular appointment which is caused due to journey from training place to the posting place or the non-availability of post, etc. The position has been examined in consultation with the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and clarified as follows: It is mentioned that the Decision (1) above is effective from the date of issue i.e. 22.12.1983. Thus, the benefits of this order can be given to an officer who is in service on that day and retires thereafter. As regards treating the interruption period in between training period and regular appointment, it is stated that the training should be followed immediately by an appointment which means that there should not be any interruption. Even, if any interruption falls between the training period and regular appointment, that should not exceed the joining time admissible under the relevant rules for the purpose of benefit to be given under Decision (1) above. In view of the position stated, it is requested that this provision may be brought to the notice of all concerned subordinate units including P & T Training Centres. (3) Condonation of administrative delay in issuing posting order after training, for counting training period for pension - 1. In view of the position stated, it is requested that this provision may be brought to the notice of all concerned subordinate units including P & T Training Centres. (3) Condonation of administrative delay in issuing posting order after training, for counting training period for pension - 1. Rule 22 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and Government of India's instructions issued on the subject from time to time provide that a period of training can be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits if the training is immediately followed by appointment. Even if any interruption falls between the training period and regular appointment, that should not exceed the joining time admissible under the relevant rules. 2. But instances have come to notice where there has been administrative delay in giving appointment letters, etc. after the training period is over and the appointment takes more time than the joining time admissible under the relevant rules. 3. The question as to how the intervening period in such type of cases can be treated if it exceeds the joining time admissible and the delay on the part of the Government in giving appointment letters and as to whether that intervening period can be condoned, was referred to Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare, who have advised that in cases where the delay is purely administrative, they have no objection to condoning the said period. 4. They have further advised that effort should be made to eliminate the administrative delays particularly where it is known in advance that the trainees have to be given final appointment letters, etc. A reading of these decisions, reveals that they are issued for the benefit of the employees and to meet certain situations like treatment of the interruption between training and regular appointment, condonation of administrative delay, etc. in implementing Rule 22. These decisions are meant for the benefit of the employees, but not to put against them, to their disadvantage. The power conferred under decision No.3 to condone the administrative delay can be equally extended when there is no expressive restriction in Rule 22 itself to condone the delay caused by the employees, due to reasons not in their control, such as the one like in the present case i.e. ill health of the employee." 7. The power conferred under decision No.3 to condone the administrative delay can be equally extended when there is no expressive restriction in Rule 22 itself to condone the delay caused by the employees, due to reasons not in their control, such as the one like in the present case i.e. ill health of the employee." 7. In view of Rule 22 as well as Government of India's decisions, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that interruption between training and regular appointment is also condonable. Thus, we find that the Tribunal has passed the order in accordance with law. Even otherwise, as per the National Litigation Policy, the petition should not have been preferred in this court, as the matter is confined to the applicant and it pertains to pensionary benefit. 8. Resultantly, we find no ground to entertain the writ petition, which is hereby dismissed. The stay petition is also dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******