SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6259

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial), Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Om Prakash Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No.1263 of 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Babu Nandan Singh
For the Respondents: V.P. Tripathi

Service rendered in the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) prior to regular appointment must be counted for consequential service benefits (MACP, pension, seniority) for all similarly situated employees, as established in various judgments in rem affirmed by the Apex Court.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Service Law - Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) service - Counting of service rendered as RTP prior to regularization for service benefits including MACP, pension, and seniority - Benefit extended to similarly placed persons by various Benches of Tribunal and affirmed by the Apex Court - Respondents directed to extend benefits in consonance with binding precedents and judgment in rem. (Paras 8-16)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, appointed on a provisional basis as a Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistant in 1983 and regularized in 1987, retired in 2017. He sought the inclusion of his RTP service for pensionary and career progression benefits, alleging discrimination as similarly situated employees had been granted such benefits by various Tribunal benches, affirmed by the Apex Court. The respondents contended that RTP service was temporary, hourly-based, and ineligible for counting towards regular service.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal observed that the issue is no longer res integra, as the benefit of counting RTP service has been confirmed by multiple high-level judicial pronouncements, including those affirmed by the Apex Court. The court ruled that the respondents' denial of benefits to the applicant, despite the legal position being established in rem, was unjustified and mandated that the applicant receive the same benefits as allowed in similar cases.

Issues: Whether the service rendered by the applicant under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) scheme prior to regularization is eligible to be counted for the purpose of granting financial and service benefits such as MACP and pension.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters of pay scales and service benefits, public authorities are obliged to follow the established dicta of the Apex Court and High Courts. Once a judgment has been declared to be in rem regarding the counting of RTP service, the authorities are obligated to extend the same benefit to all similarly situated personnel suo motu rather than forcing them to undergo litigation.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts regarding rtp service regularization dispute. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions of the applicant based on precedents. (Para 6)
3. binding judicial precedents mandate extending rtp benefits to all similarly situated employees. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

O R D E R

Delivered By Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)

Heard Shri Babu Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri V.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following reliefs:

“(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and direct the respondents to count his service 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. 8.2.83 for purpose of pension and all other consequential benefits including seniority and pay fixation (DCRG, Leave in casement, 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 complete of 16 years service and pay in the higher scale.

(iii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents 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'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(vi) To award cost of the petition in favor of the applicant.”

3. The brief facts as stated in the Original Application are that the applicant was selected for the post of Reserve Trained Pool Postal Assistant. The appointment of the applicant was made on provisional basis and as such, the applicant completed all the required conditions as per notification and after verification, he joined as Postal Assistant vide order dated 24.11.1983. The applicant also completed training. Subsequently, the applicant was regularized as Postal Assistant and given regular pay scale w.e.f. 30.06.1987. However, his services as RTP before regularization, have not been counted by the respondents for any service benefits including career progression.

3.1 The applicant superannuated from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2017 from Ghazipur Division from the post of Sub Post Master, Zamania and other posts, but his initial service as RTP prior to regularization has not been counted for service benefits. Some similarly situated persons approached various Benches of this Tribunal from time to time and the Tribunal has allowed the claim of similarly situated persons in those Original Applications. As per the applicant he made a representation on 03.04.2024 before the respondents for counting his past service period under RTP, but no action was taken. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.

4. On the other hand, counter reply was filed on 02.07.2025, wherein it has been stated that the applicant was initially appointed as temporary short time staff on hourly basis in department under Reserve Trained Pool Scheme, which was evolved on 30.10.1980 and later discontinued in 1986. He was allotted to Hazaribagh Division and subsequently, regularized on 30.06.1987.

4.1 The applicant was employed under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) scheme, which provided for employment on an hourly basis with a maximum of eight hours of work per day. The RTP candidates were aware that their appointment was temporary and did not gu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top