Pre-regularisation RTP service cannot be counted for retrospective service benefits.

The applicants claimed that they had initially joined the Postal Department as Reserved Trained Pool (“RTP”) Postal Assistants between 1981 and 1990. Although they performed duties of Postal Assistants, they were allegedly paid only an allowance and were not granted the regular time scale or service benefits applicable to regular Postal Assistants. Their services were subsequently regularised between 1990 and 1991, but the period served as RTP was not counted for seniority, TBOP/BCR/MACP benefits, pensionary benefits or other consequential service benefits.

The applicants relied principally on decisions of the CAT Ernakulam Bench in OA No.79/2011 and batch cases and of the CAT Hyderabad Bench in OA Nos.779 and 780 of 2013, asserting that the benefits granted in those cases should be extended to them as similarly situated employees.

They had submitted representations to the Postal authorities in July 2024, nearly three decades after their regularisation. The representations were rejected on the ground that the benefits granted pursuant to the Hyderabad proceedings were confined to the original applicants and could not be extended generally.

The applicants consequently filed the present original applications challenging the rejection orders, along with applications for condonation of delay. The Tribunal heard both matters together because they involved substantially identical facts, reliefs and legal issues.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to have their pre-regularisation RTP service counted for regularisation, seniority, TBOP/BCR/MACP benefits, pensionary benefits and other consequential service benefits

2. Whether the applicants had shown sufficient cause for condonation of the substantial delay in approaching the Tribunal after their regularisation and after the alleged cause of action arose

3. Whether the applicants, as persons who had not challenged their regularisation or service fixation for several decades, could claim parity with employees who had successfully litigated similar claims before other Benches of the Tribunal

The Tribunal applied Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an application filed beyond the prescribed period may be entertained only where sufficient cause for delay is established.

It relied on the principle that service rendered by RTP personnel before regular appointment in an eligible cadre cannot ordinarily be counted for service benefits because RTP service is not regular cadre service, as stated in Union of India v. K.N. Sivadas and reaffirmed through the discussion of Union of India v. Gandiba Behera, which rejected retrospective or pre-dated regularisation.

The Tribunal also relied on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, and C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining, (2008) 10 SCC 115, for the rule that consideration or rejection of a belated representation does not create a fresh cause of action or revive a stale claim.

Under State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, persons who acquiesced in an adverse action and approached the court only after other employees succeeded are “fence-sitters” and may be denied relief on the grounds of delay, laches and acquiescence.

The Tribunal also followed the binding reasoning of the jurisdictional Madras High Court in WP No.13633/2020 and connected matters, decided on 24 January 2023, which held that RTP service could not be retrospectively treated as regular Postal Assistant service and that long, unexplained delay barred the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ claims were indistinguishable from the claims rejected in OA No.147/2021 and batch matters and OA No.80/2021 and batch matters by its order dated 17 February 2026.

The applicants had been regularised between 1990 and 1991 and had accepted the consequential fixation of their service for approximately thirty years without challenging the date of regular appointment or seeking recognition of RTP service within a reasonable time.

Applying K.N. Sivadas and Gandiba Behera, the Tribunal held that pre-regularisation RTP service was not service in the regular eligible cadre and therefore could not be used to retrospectively calculate TBOP, BCR, MACP or similar benefits.

The subsequent representations made in July 2024 did not revive the stale claims or extend limitation under M.K. Sarkar.

The applicants were therefore treated as fence-sitters under Arvind Kumar Srivastava, since they sought parity only after other employees had obtained favourable orders.

The Tribunal declined to rely on the Delhi High Court decision in Union of India v. Dheeraj Pal, observing that the applicants had already relied on the same line of authority in the earlier batch matters and had not demonstrated any legally material distinction from the binding Madras High Court decisions.

Their claims were barred by gross and unexplained delay, laches and acquiescence, and the rejection of their belated representations did not furnish a fresh cause of action.

Accordingly, MA No.849/2025 and MA No.850/2025 seeking condonation of delay were dismissed, and the connected original applications at the diary stage were consequently dismissed as time-barred. Any other pending miscellaneous applications were also dismissed, with no order as to costs; the Registry was directed to number the original applications for record purposes.