Service as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistants must be counted toward qualifying service for pensionary benefits.

The eight applicants were initially engaged as Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistants and rendered continuous service for approximately five years

They were regularized in 1988 and subsequently retired as Sub Post Masters or in LSG PA grades

The applicants filed the present application seeking to regularize their services from their initial date of joining by counting the RTP service period as qualifying service for pensionary benefits, financial up-gradations (TBOP/MACP), and revised retiral benefits

Despite five opportunities granted by the Tribunal, the respondents failed to file a counter-affidavit

1. Whether the service rendered by the applicants under the RTP scheme prior to their formal regularization is liable to be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.

service rendered under the RTP scheme, followed by regularization, must be counted toward qualifying service for pension, as established in K. Manohara & Ors. v. Union of India (CAT Hyderabad, OA 779-780/2013) and affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016

This doctrine is further supported by the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dismissal of SLP No. 11313 of 1987 (dated 11.05.1988), which upheld the Jabalpur Bench’s decision in T.A. No. 82 of 1986 regarding the recognition of RTP service

The Tribunal noted that the legal issue regarding RTP service is res integra (already settled by higher courts). It observed that the applicants’ regularization was a formal recognition of long-standing continuous service and that the RTP scheme itself intended for eventual absorption into regular vacancies

Citing the CAT Principal Bench decision in Rakesh Pal Singh v. Union of India (OA No. 3466/2019), the Tribunal emphasized that the respondents are under a legal obligation to extend these benefits suo motu to similarly situated employees rather than forcing them into litigation

In the absence of any counter-affidavit or distinguishing facts from the respondents, the Tribunal found that the applicants’ claim for pensionary benefits—a recurring cause of action—fell squarely within the ambit of the settled judicial precedents

The respondents were directed to consider the applicants' claims in light of the cited judgments and pass a reasoned speaking order within three months. If found entitled, all consequential benefits, including MACP and pension revisions, must be released within a further period of two months