RTP Service Preceding Regular Appointment with Break Cannot Count as Qualifying Service for Pensionary Benefits

The applicant was selected as a Telephone Operator under the "Reserve Trained Pool" (RTP) and joined on March 28, 1984.

She underwent training from June to September 1985 and continued performing duties until she was formally regularized on July 1, 1988.

After serving for several decades, she opted for the BSNL Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), 2019, and retired on January 31, 2020.

Upon retirement, the respondents calculated her pensionary and ex-gratia benefits by counting her service only from the date of regularization (July 1, 1988) instead of her initial joining date in 1984.

The applicant challenged the order dated January 25, 2020, which rejected her claim to count the RTP period (1984–1988) as qualifying service.

1. Whether the service rendered as a Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) candidate on an hourly/short-duty basis can be counted as qualifying service for pensionary and ex-gratia benefits.

2. Whether the period of pre-appointment training can be counted as qualifying service when there is a significant time gap before regular appointment.

3. Whether the application is barred by the doctrine of delay and laches due to the decades-long interval between regularization and the legal challenge.

Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the limitation period for filing applications.

The Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. A. Durairaj (Dead), which established that belated service claims are liable to be rejected on grounds of delay and laches even if no specific limitation is prescribed.

The principle from Union of India v. K.N. Sivadas (1997), holding that service rendered prior to regular appointment in a cadre (such as casual or stop-gap arrangements) cannot be counted as qualifying service for benefits linked to regular cadre service.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s initial engagement was under the RTP scheme, which was explicitly temporary, intermittent, and paid on an hourly basis, conferring no right to regular appointment.

The court found that the applicant failed to prove continuous regular service between 1984 and 1988, noting a three-year gap between her training and her actual regularization.

On the issue of training, the Tribunal noted that pre-appointment training is only countable if followed immediately by a regular appointment, which was not the case here.

Most significantly, the Tribunal observed that the applicant accepted her regularization date of July 1, 1988, for over thirty years without protest; seeking to redefine her qualifying service only after retirement constitutes an impermissible attempt to reopen stale claims.

The court concluded that the claim was barred by gross delay and laches. It further held that the pre-1988 engagement was a casual stop-gap arrangement governed by express RTP conditions that did not qualify as regular service for pensionary or ex-gratia benefits under the BSNL VRS-2019. No costs were ordered.