JUDGMENT N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the Postal Department against the order dated 21.6.2013 made in O.A.No.1277 of 2011 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, directing the petitioners to consider the service of the second respondent and pass appropriate orders granting pensionary benefits to him as per law, within a period of two months. 2. The second respondent was initially appointed as EDDA in Sathanur Dam Sub Post Office on 11.8.1967. After 29 years in the said post, the second respondent was appointed in Group `D' cadre by seniority on 18.10.1996 in Pudupalayam Sub Post Office and he was confirmed w.e.f. 18.10.1998 by order dated 1.2.1999 and thereafter he was promoted as Postman. During his service, the second respondent was awarded with a dies-non for one day on 5.1.1998 and for 14 days for participating in the All India Strike from 5.12.2000 to 18.12.2000 and on 29.9.2005. The second respondent retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2006 after putting in the qualifying service of 9 years 8 months and 27 days. 3. The Minister of Communication and Information Technology announced in the Parliament that the strike period of the postal employees will be converted into earned leave accumulated during the year 2000-2001. The said announcement was communicated by the Directorate to All Heads of Circles by means of a Circular dated 27.10.2008. Pursuant to the said announcement, the second respondent submitted representations to the second petitioner on 6.7.2006, 21.1.2008 and 15.2.2010 respectively requesting to condone the strike period of 14 days and to treat the said period as service period for the purpose of granting retirement and pensionary benefits with effect from the date of retirement on 31.7.2006. The third petitioner rejected the request of the second respondent by the present impugned order, stating that there is no ruling that same weightage should be given for the ED service while considering the departmental service for pension and other retirement benefits. Hence, the second respondent filed the Original Application. 4. The said Original Application was opposed by the petitioners contending that the second respondent was not having ten years of qualifying service in Group "D" cadre and as per Rule 49(3) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, unless qualifying service of ten years is available, pensionary benefits cannot be extended to the second respondent. 5. 4. The said Original Application was opposed by the petitioners contending that the second respondent was not having ten years of qualifying service in Group "D" cadre and as per Rule 49(3) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, unless qualifying service of ten years is available, pensionary benefits cannot be extended to the second respondent. 5. The Tribunal disposed of the Original Application by order dated 21.6.2013 and directed the Postal Department to grant the second respondent the retirement benefits and pension as per law, within a period of two months. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed by the Postal Department. 6. The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent has not put in ten years of pensionable service and therefore he has not satisfied Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the Tribunal is not justified in allowing the Original Application and prayed for setting aside the order of the Tribunal. The learned counsel further submitted that even if earlier orders of this Court are applied, the direction to count 50% of Extra Department service is not proper as no one was permitted to avail 50% of the said service. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that considering the Extra Department cadre service rendered by the second respondent from the year 1967 and his continuous service till his superannuation on 31.7.2006, the Tribunal was justified in directing the petitioners to treat that the second respondent has completed 10 years of qualifying service for the purpose of pension. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court made in W.P.No.45465 of 2002, dated 4.10.2007 (Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi – 110 001 v. M.R.Palanisamy), wherein a similar issue was raised by an E.D.Staff who served for 29 years before his permanent absorption as Group "D" staff and he was ordered to be granted pension treating that the person has completed 10 years of qualifying service, though he was having a regular service of 9 years, 3 months and 29 days, with reference to the E.D.Staff service. The said judgment was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.13829 of 2008 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 17.10.2008. Thereafter, the very same Department sanctioned pension to the said person, namely, M.R.Palanisamy, by order dated 9.10.2009. 9. Even though the order of the Division Bench in W.P.No.45465 of 2002, dated 4.10.2007 restricted the relief only to the first respondent in the said writ petition, again the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.22833 of 2010 (T.Jayaraman v. The Post Master General, Central Region, T.N.Circle, Trichy and others) noticing the similar set of facts allowed the writ petition by order dated 10.11.2010 taking note of the earlier order, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court and which was also implemented by the Department. 10. Again, in the order dated 14.2.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.22496 of 2009 (Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001 and others v. G.Thulasidasan), a similarly placed person was ordered to be granted pension, considering the long number of years of service as E.D.Staff, though the person was not having ten years of completed pensionable service, treating him to have completed ten years of pensionable service. 11. A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court by order dated 25.3.2013 in W.P.No.72872 of 2012 (S-CAT) (Union of India, rep. by the Secretary, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001 and others v. B.V.Dambal) also passed similar order. 12. The facts in the above referred cases are exactly similar to the case of the second respondent, who served as E.D. Staff from 11.8.1967 and was regularly absorbed as Group "D" staff from 18.10.1996, in which post he served nine years, eight months and twenty seven days and retired on 31.7.2006. Hence, the second respondent is entitled to get pension from 1.8.2006. The direction to count 50% of Extra Department service having not been granted to any of the similarly placed persons, the Tribunal is not justified in giving direction to count 50% of Extra Department service for pension. 13. Hence, the decision rendered by the Tribunal requires modification to that extent. The writ petition is allowed in part. The direction to count 50% of Extra Department service having not been granted to any of the similarly placed persons, the Tribunal is not justified in giving direction to count 50% of Extra Department service for pension. 13. Hence, the decision rendered by the Tribunal requires modification to that extent. The writ petition is allowed in part. The petitioners are directed to sanction pension and other benefits by treating that the second respondent has completed 10 years of service as on 31.7.2006, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.