JUDGMENT 1. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the Union of India and Ors. aggrieved against the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur ('the Tribunal'), whereby the Original Application ('OA') filed by the respondent has been allowed and the petitioners have been directed to count suspension period of the applicant, who is now retired from service, as qualifying service for all purposes and as the penalty order was held as non-est, it was also directed that the applicant be allowed all consequential benefits admissible under law. 2. The respondent was initially appointed to the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (`EDMC'). Where after, on passing the departmental examination, he was promoted to the post of postman on 24.6.1980. While working as postman, he was placed under suspension on 10.4.1987 and was issued a charge-sheet for major penalty. Where after, a penalty of reduction to the lower post of Group-D for a period of two years was imposed on the respondent with the direction that the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments on restoration after above specified period, and on promotion, the seniority will be fixed by giving credit for the period of service rendered as Postman. 3. The respondent retired from service on 30.9.2009 and after retirement, he was issued a show cause notice dated 9.11.2009 as to why the period of suspension from 10.4.1987 to 5.1.1989 should not be treated as 'Non-duty'. 4. After the reply was filed by the respondent, it was decided by the petitioners vide impugned order dated 30.11.2009 that the period of suspension be counted towards qualifying service for pension purposes only. 5. Aggrieved against the order dated 30.11.2009, the respondent filed OA seeking quashing of the order and a direction to the respondents to treat the order of punishment of reduction from the post of postman to the post of Group-D as non-est and consequential benefits. 6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, relying on judgement of Hon'ble : Supreme Court in the case of Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra : (1988) 4 SCC 168 , came to the following conclusion and directed as under:- "10. 6. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, relying on judgement of Hon'ble : Supreme Court in the case of Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra : (1988) 4 SCC 168 , came to the following conclusion and directed as under:- "10. As per the facts as averred in the application, reply as well as arguments advanced by both the counsels and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi (supra), it is settled position of law that a person who is direct recruit cannot be awarded the punishment of reversion to a lower post on which he was not recruited as direct recruit. Accordingly, the order of punishment dated 04.01.1989, though, has not been challenged and not produced in the OA, but has been referred in Annex. A/1 and A/4, is a nonest order. Therefore, the applicant is allowed to have his suspension period counted towards qualifying service as well as for other purposes also. 11. In view of the discussions made herein above, this is allowed and the respondents are directed to count the suspension period from 10.04.1987 to 05.01.1989 of the applicant, who is now retired from service, as qualifying service for all purposes and as the penalty order, as observed above, being non-est, the applicant be allowed all consequential benefits admissible under law.'' 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal was not justified in accepting the OA filed by the respondent and while deciding the issue pertaining to counting of the period of suspension, the order of penalty could not have been held as non-est and therefore, the same requires interference by this Court. It was further submitted that there is no bar in law in reverting an employee by way of punishment to a post lower than on which he was appointed and therefore, on merits also, the order requires interference.We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material placed on record.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi (supra), while dealing with the issue of reversion, which judgement has been relied on by the Tribunal, held as under:- "A direct recruit to a post, it cannot be gainsaid, cannot be reverted to a lower post. It is only a promote who can be reverted from the promotion post to the lower post from which he was promoted. These propositions are so elementary that the same are incapable of being disputed and have not been disputed. The High Court presumably realised that the matter was inarguable and there was no escape from the conclusion reached by the trial court. The High Court was however carried away by an irrelevant argument which had no bearing on the issue before the Court. What was argued before the High Court was that in any case his appointment was a temporary one and it could have been terminated as per the conditions of service applicable to him. Assuming that his appointment was a temporary one and it could have been so terminated, the fact remains that in point of fact no such power had been invoked and the services of the appellant had not been terminated at all. If his services had been so terminated under the relevant rule, the question could possibly have arisen as to whether or not such termination could have been lawfully made. No such termination having taken place, the existence of the rule was altogether irrelevant. The State had passed an order which clearly was unsustainable in view of the fact that the appellant was a direct recruit and there was no question of reverting him to any lower post. The High Court should not have allowed itself to be misled by the misleading argument regarding the service condition under which the services of the appellant could possibly have been, but were not in fact, terminated. The view taken by the High Court is thoroughly unsustainable. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed. The judgement and decree passed by the High Court must accordingly be set aside and the judgement and decree passed by the trial court must be restored." 8. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the punishment imposed on the respondent was exfacie against settled position of law and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the same was non-est. From the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the punishment imposed on the respondent was exfacie against settled position of law and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the same was non-est. It is surprising that after the respondent retired, a show cause notice was issued regarding the treatment of the period of suspension which had happened way-back in the year 1989 and when the same was decided by the petitioners, the respondent questioned the same and also brought the legal position regarding the punishment order itself being non-est to the notice of the Tribunal and it cannot be said that implication of a non-est order could not have been decided by the Tribunal while deciding the validity of the order impugned. 9. In view of the above, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. 10. There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.writ Petition Dismissed. *******