Reserve Trained Pool service period cannot be counted as regular service for seniority or financial benefits.

In 2016, several Postal and RMS Union groups and individual employees filed an Original Application (OA) seeking regular appointment status for Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) employees recruited from 1980 onwards

Specifically, they sought seniority, pay scales, and promotions effective from their initial date of joining as RTPs

During the proceedings, the respondents filed an additional affidavit on January 20, 2025, asserting that the legal issues raised had already been resolved by various coordinate Benches, High Courts, and the Supreme Court

Despite multiple extensions granted throughout 2025 to file a rebuttal, the applicants failed to respond and eventually ceased appearing for hearings in early 2026

1. Whether the RTP recruits from 1980 onwards are entitled to be deemed regular appointees from their date of joining with all consequential benefits

2. Whether the OA should be dismissed due to non-prosecution and the applicants' failure to respond to contrary legal precedents cited by the respondents

The Tribunal relied on the principle of res integra, noting that the subject matter had been conclusively decided by higher judicial forums.

It cited the decision of the Hyderabad Bench in OA Nos. 779/2013 and 780/2013 (decided on 15.04.2015), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

furthermore, it referenced the legal standards for regularization and seniority established in Bipin Bihari Dutta vs. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5265/2011) and the Supreme Court’s rulings in Civil Appeal No. 5268/97 and related matters

Procedurally, the Tribunal applied the rule of dismissal for non-prosecution when a party fails to pursue the litigation or comply with directions to file pleadings

The Tribunal observed that the legal landscape regarding RTP employees had shifted significantly since the OA was filed in 2016. The respondents provided evidence via an additional affidavit that the applicants' claims were no longer legally tenable in light of subsequent judgments from the Supreme Court and High Courts

The Tribunal noted that the applicants were given five distinct opportunities between March 2025 and December 2025 to respond to these legal developments but failed to do so

Because the applicants failed to appear for the final three hearings (February, April, and the current date) and did not rebut the respondents' contention that the issue was already settled (res integra), the Tribunal found no grounds to keep the matter pending

The court held that the issue involved was squarely covered by prior decisions of the Hyderabad Bench and the Supreme Court, thereby denying the reliefs for backdated regularisation and financial benefits. All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of, and no costs were awarded