Pre-regularization Reserve Trained Pool service cannot be counted for financial upgradations or seniority benefits.

The applicants were initially engaged by the Department of Posts as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants between 1981 and 1984

The RTP scheme was a standing pool of trained candidates designed to handle peak traffic and leave vacancies on an hourly wage basis

The applicants were subsequently regularized between 1987 and 1990

In 2019, approximately 30 years after their regularization, the applicants filed representations seeking to count their pre-regularization RTP service as qualifying service for financial upgradations under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP), Biennial Cadre Review (BCR), and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes

They relied on a 2013 judgment by the Ernakulam Bench of the CAT (K.S. Beena case)

The respondents rejected the representations, citing lack of provision in the rules and the lapse of three decades

1. Whether service rendered as a Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) candidate prior to regular appointment can be counted for the purpose of granting TBOP, BCR, and MACP benefits

2. Whether the original applications are barred by the principles of limitation, delay, and laches under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

3. Whether "fence-sitters" who approach the Tribunal after inordinate delay are entitled to the same relief granted to vigilant litigants in earlier cases

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which mandates strict adherence to limitation periods

Union of India v. K.N. Sivadas (1997), which established that RTP service prior to regular appointment does not count for seniority or promotion as it is not service in an eligible cadre

Jurisdictional precedent of the Madras High Court in Union of India v. M. Kannan (2011) and W.P. No. 13633 of 2020, which held that TBOP/MACP benefits are calculated only from the date of regular appointment and that stale claims cannot be revived by fresh representations

Doctrine from State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) regarding "fence-sitters" and the "rise like a phoenix" principle for dead causes of action

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claim lacked legal justification because RTP service was inherently temporary and contingent, not constituting service in a regular cadre

The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional Madras High Court had explicitly rejected the reasoning of the Ernakulam Bench (which the applicants relied upon), clarifying that even in the Mathivanan case, the Supreme Court calculated the 16-year TBOP period from the date of regular appointment, not RTP entry

On the issue of delay, the Tribunal observed that the applicants remained silent for 30 years and only "woke up" after seeing other litigants succeed

Following C. Girija (2019), the Tribunal held that a direction to consider a belated representation does not furnish a fresh cause of action or erase three decades of laches

As the applicants failed to challenge the "ban on recruitment" or their regularization dates at the material time, their claims were deemed "unethical and unreasonable" greed

It held that RTP service rendered prior to regular absorption cannot be counted for seniority, promotion, or financial upgradation benefits like TBOP, BCR, and MACP

The Tribunal further held that the claims were barred by gross delay and laches, as the applicants were "fence-sitters" who failed to approach the forum within a reasonable time

All pending Miscellaneous Applications for condonation of delay were dismissed, and OAs at the diary stage were rejected

No order as to costs was made