AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member-(A)
Heard Shri Babu Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicants, who are 5 in numbers for the following reliefs:
(i)To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and direct the respondents to count their services rendered as Reserve Trained Pool for purpose of granting the financial up gradation under time bound one promotion scheme and the modified assured career progression scheme the past service since initial appointment w.e.f. 02.02.1983 for purpose of pension and all other consequential benefits including seniority and pay fixation (DCRG, leave encashment, pay fixation, seniority, revised pension) and same shall be paid 12% interest on the entire sum from the due date. ;
(ii)to issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to count service since initial appointment for benefit of TBOP after completion of 16 years service and pay in higher scale.
(iii)To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to count the service since initial appointment for purpose of benefit of MACP.
(iv)to issue a suitable order or direction to pay the same salary and emoluments per mensem as are being received by postal assistant with effect from the date of their appointment and pay arrears.
(v)to pass such other and further order as this Hon’b le Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vi)To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts as stated in the Original Application are that the applicants were selected through proper recruitment for the post of Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistant and were initially appointed on 02.02.1983. They completed the prescribed training and continued to perform the duties of Postal Assistant. Their services were later regularized between 16.09.1987 and 12.07.1988, but the respondents did not count their RTP service from the date of initial appointment for TBOP, MACP, pension, DCRG, leave encashment, seniority and other retiral/service benefits. The applicants retired on different dates, and their pension and other benefits were fixed only from the date of regularization.
The applicants rely upon various judgments of the CAT, High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein similar RTP service was directed to be counted for financial and pensionary benefits and the benefit was extended to similarly situated employees. The applicants submitted a representation dated 09.06.2024 seeking counting of their RTP service from the initial appointment date, but no action was taken by the respondents. Therefore, the applicants have approached the Tribunal seeking counting of their service from 02.02.1983 and consequential benefits including TBOP, MACP, DCRG, leave encashment, revised pension, seniority and arrears of salary/retiral benefits.
On the other hand, counter reply was filed on 09.09.2025, wherein it has been stated that the applicants were initially selected provisionally under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Scheme and worked as RTP personnel before being appointed as regular Postal Assistants. Their regular joining dates were between 16.09.1987 and 25.03.1988, and they subsequently retired on different dates. The applicants have filed the present O.A. seeking counting of their RTP service from 02.02.1983 for TBOP, MACP, pension and other consequential benefits, along with interest.
The respondents contend that the RTP Scheme did not provide any right to count the period of RTP service rendered before regular appointment for any service benefit, as RTP employees were only part of a reserve pool and were paid hourly wages. The respondents rely upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly Jagrit Mazdoor Union v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and subsequent decisions, to submit that RTP employees became entitled to regular service benefits only after their absorption as regular employees.
The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5268/97 (SLP (C) No. 17422/95) CA No. 126/96, 124-125/96, 127-130/96 & 131/96) passed in case of Shri K.N. Sivadas & ors had clearly held vide judgment dated judgment dated 01.08.1997 that any service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of the said rule because it cannot be considered as service in any eligible case.
The High Court of Madras in WP No. 13633/2020 and 1540, 289 & 188/2021 and WP No.16929/2020,1743, 2588361/2021 had dismissed similar case vide its order dated 24.01.2023. According to the respondents, the applicants have already been granted all benefits admissible under the rules, and their request to antedate their regular appointment to the initial RTP appointment is not legally permissible. Therefore, the respondents seek dismissal of the O.A. as being without merit.
In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 06.11.2025, wherein he has reiterated the same averments as made in Original Application.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the services rendered by the applicants as RTP prior to regularization ought to have been counted for service benefits including for grant of MACP in view of order passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of This Tribunal, which was affirmed up to the Apex Court.
Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that the issue involved in this Original Application has already been decided by the courts. Learned counsel for the applicants also submits that once the issue has been decided, it was obligatory at the end of the respondents to extend the benefits to all similarly placed persons and not to compel all the similarly placed persons to approach the Courts and Tribunal. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.9849/2014 vide its judgment dated 17.10.2014.
Learned counsel for the applicants placed heavy reliance on the following orders/judgments:-
K. Manohara/V Ravi Krishna & Ors. Vs. Union of India, passed by CAT Hyderabad vide its order dated 15.04.2015, which was affirmed by the High Court of Telangana vide its order dated 27.02.2023 in W.P. No.17400/2016 and also affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 05.02.2024 in SLP (Civil) No.1868/2024
K.S. Beena & Ors. Vs. Union of India passed by CAT Ernakulum vide its order dated 01.10.2013, which was affirmed by the High Court of Kerala vide its order dated 17.03.2017 in OP Nos.89, 95, 101, 102, 112, 114, 117/2024 and also affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 10.11.2017 in SLP (civil) No.25442/2017.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the assertions made in the counter reply that the applicants were initially recruited as RTP candidates in the Postal Department vide Memo dated 02.02.1983 and were allotted to the Balia Division. They were subsequently regularized as Postal Assistants on 15.09.1987 vide Memo No.B-3/2/Rectt/P.As issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Ballia Division.
He further submitted that the RTP Scheme was introduced by the Department vide letter dated 30.10.1980 to meet temporary staff shortages and ensure smooth functioning of Post Offices and RMS offices. Under the scheme, reserve list candidates were trained and utilized on an hourly wage basis to meet emergent requirements and peak workload. The scheme did not provide any right for automatic absorption or for counting the service rendered prior to regular appointment for pensionary or other benefits. The scheme was later discontinued on 04.03.1986. Therefore, the claim of the applicants that the RTP period should be counted as qualifying service for pension and other consequential benefits is not tenable.
Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N. Sivadas & Others (Civil Appeal No.5268/1997) decided on 01.08.1997, wherein it was held that service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment cannot be counted as qualifying service. It was also submitted that a similar claim was dismissed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court vide order dated 24.01.2023.
Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments in his counter affidavit:-
I. Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) & Ors. Etc. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Etc. dated 29.11.1989, 1989 SCR Supl.(2)329 1990 SCC Supl.113/JT 1989 Supl.364 1989 Scale (2) 1455.
II. Union of India & Anr. Vs. K.N. Sivadas & Ors. Dated 01.08.1997, Civil Appeal No.5268/97 {@SLP[C] No.17422/95}
Accordingly, it was argued by counsel for the respondents that the Original Application is devoid of merit and is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
Submissions of both the parties have been heard and records have been gone through.
From perusal of the records, it appears that the issue involved in this Original Application is now no more res integra as the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.9849/2014 vide its judgment dated 17.10.2014 has clearly held as under:-
12.In the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 22 has held as under:-
*22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1.The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."
13.In view of the aforesaid facts binding precedent, the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with following directions:-
(i)The impugned orders dated 08.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 are quashed and set aside.
(ii)The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in present OA.
(iii)The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.
(iv)The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
The order passed in case of Dheeraj Pal (supra) has already been affirmed by the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 27.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No.7301/2025 & 7412/2025. Relevant para is quoted as under:-
7.As far as the challenge on merits is concerned, this Court by its Judgment in Raksh Pal Singh (supra), has already dismissed a similar challenge of the petitioners. Furthermore, and as noted hereinabove, the Special Leave Petition there against has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Being a Bench of coordinate strength, we are bound by the Judgment.
8.On the question of delay and laches, we again find no merit in the petition.
9.This Court in Raksh Pal Singh (supra), was considering the OA(s) filed by the respondents therein in the year 2020, wherein the learned Tribunal, placing reliance on an Order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.(C) 17400/2016, against which SLP(C) Diary No. 1868/2024 was dismissed keeping the question of law open, held that the respondents therein would be entitled to have their services, rendered as Reserve Trained Pool from 1983 to 1985, counted for the purpose calculation of financial benefits. This Court upheld the learned Tribunal’s decision, noting that other similarly situated individuals had already been granted such benefits for their service in the Reserve Trained Pool, and there was no justification for denying the same to the respondents.
10.We agree with the above findings. There cannot be a different yardstick for different members of the service, requiring each one of them to approach the Court for similar benefits. In our view, the Judgment in the present case would apply in rem and therefore, the benefit should have been extended by the petitioners to all the similarly situated personnel.
11.We, therefore, find no merit in the present petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of as being rendered infructuous.
The Delhi High Court considered all the grounds and held that judgment in that case would apply in rem and, therefore, the benefit should been extended by the petitioners to all the similarly situated personnel.
The aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court is affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) Diary No.51581/2025 vide its judgment dated 14.11.2025 as well as SLP (C) No.59384/2025 vide its order dated 05.01.2026.
In view of judicial pronouncement, the applicants are also entitled for similar benefits as has been given to applicants of O.A. No.779 & 780/2013 passed by CAT Hyderabad Bench, which was affirmed upto the Apex Court.
So far as judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are concerned, the same are not applicable in the instant case as the Delhi High Court while affirming the order of CAT Principal Bench in O.A. No.823/2020, held that the judgment was in rem.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the orders passed in O.A. No.779 & 780/2013 passed by CAT Hyderabad Bench, which were affirmed up to the Apex Court to the applicants of this Original Application, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Resultantly, instant OA stands allowed
All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
No order as to costs.