Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
G Amsavalli vs Department Of Posts on 19 February, 2026
1 of 69
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00147 of 2021; O.A. No. 310/ 00168 of 2021; M.A. No.
858 of 2024 in Diary No. 2978 of 2024 (OA); M.A. 8 63 of 2024 in
Diary No. 3088 of 2024 (OA); M.A. 864 of 2024 in Diary No.2974
of 2024 (OA); M.A. 865 of 2024 in Diary No.2953 of 2024 (OA);
M.A. 866 of 2024 in Diary No.3090 of 2024 (OA); M.A. 868 of
2024 in Diary No.3082 of 2024; M.A. 882 of 2024 in Diary No.3147
of 2024; M.A. 887 of 2024 in Diary No.2956 of 2024; M.A. 888 of
2024 in Diary No.3067 of 2024; M.A. 889 of 2024 in Diary
No.3038 of 2024; M.A. 904 of 2024 in Diary No.3084 of 2024;
M.A. 905 of 2024 in Diary No.3150 of 2024; M.A. 906 of 2024 in
Diary No.2720 of 2024; M.A. 910 of 2024 in Diary No.2931 of
2024; M.A. 911 of 2024 in Diary No.2896 of 2024; M.A. 937 of
2024 in Diary No.3135 of 2024; M.A. 973 of 2024 in Diary No.3145
of 2024; M.A. 981 of 2024 in Diary No.3161 of 2024; M.A. 983 of
2024 in Diary No.3154 of 2024; M.A. 985 of 2024 in Diary
No.2955 of 2024; M.A. 1011 of 2024 in Diary No.3364 of 2024;
M.A. 1034 of 2024 in Diary No.3286 of 2024; M.A. 1035 of 2024 in
Diary No.3293 of 2024; M.A. 1036 of 2024 in Diary No.3316 of
2024; M.A. 1037 of 2024 in Diary No.3291 of 2024; M.A. 1038 of
2024 in Diary No.3417 of 2024; M.A. 1039 of 2024 in Diary
No.3064 of 2024; M.A. 936 of 2024 in Diary No.3049 of 2024;
M.A. 938 of 2024 in Diary No.3152 of 2024; M.A. 980 of 2024 in
Diary No.3320 of 2024; M.A. 982 of 2024 in Diary No.3163 of
2024; M.A. 984 of 2024 in Diary No.3295 of 2024; M.A. 986 of
2024 in Diary No.3086 of 2024; M.A. 992 of 2024 in Diary No.3166
of 2024; OA No. 310/001101 of 2021; OA No. 310/001103 of 2021;
2 of 69
OA No. 310/001019 of 2021; OA No. 310/001102 of 2021; OA No.
310/001109 of 2021; OA No. 310/001116 of 2021 and OA No.
310/001127 of 2021
DATED TUESDAY, THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
1. OA No. 310/00147 of 2021
1. R. Manoharan (age 57),
S/o. K. Rangasamy,
No.2, Gandhi Nagar,
Sultanpet,
Velur-638 182,
Namakkal District.
(LSG SPM, Chittalandur)
2. V. Senthilvel (age 56),
S/o. Vaiyapuri,
No.18, Middle Street,
Velur-638 182,
Namakkal District.
(LSG, SPM, Mohanur North);
3. S. Vijaya (age 57),
W/o. R. Dharanibabu,
No.5/108-2, Cauvery Nagar,
NGGOs Colony,
Salem Road,
Namakkal-637 001.
(LSG SPM, Natarajapuram);
4. R. Bhanumathi (age 57),
W/o. P. Natarajan,
No. 19/13, Ranganathapuram Street No.1,
3 of 69
Tirupur-641 601.
(LSG APM, Tirupur HO);
5. G. Santhi (age 55),
W/o. M. Saravanan,
No.8/26, Vaiyapuri Street,
Ammapettai,
Salem-636 003.
(Postmaster Gr. III, Tirupur HO);
6. V.Arumugam (age 71),
S/o. Viswanatha Mudaliar,
No.170, Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Koottapalli-637 124,
Namakkal District. (Retired SPM). ........Applicants
(Advocate: R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110.001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Western Region (TN),
Coimbatore-641 002;
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Namakkal Division,
Namakkal-637 001;
4 of 69
5. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tirupur Division,
Tirupur-641 601. .. Respondents
(Advocates: Mr. K. Rajendran, Sr. CGSC)
2. O.A. No. 310/ 168 of 2021
1. M. John Ignatuis Rajarathinam (age 59),
S/o. R. Mathavadian,
No.6/69, Vijayanur Salai,
Pandarapuram,
Satankulam-628 704
(Working as LSG Postal Assistant);
2. A. Charles (age 58),
S/o. P. Adaikalam,
No.11/19, North Street,
Paramankuruchi-628 213.
(Working as LSG Postal Assistant);
3. P. Johnsirani (age 58),
D/o. Ponniah,
No.72/8, North Car Street,
Autoor-628 151.
(Working as LSG Postal Assistant);
4. M. Malaiammai (age58),
D/o. M. Manickvasagam,
No.8, Ramar Vilai,
Tuticorin-628 001.
(Working as LSG Postal Assistant);
5. V. Geetha (age 57),
D/o. V. Viswanathan,
No.57, B-3, Buckepuram,
Tuticorin-628 003.
(Working as LSG SPM)
5 of 69
6. A. Ravi (age 59),
S/o. Arunachalam,
No. 6/148-A, Periyakaruppan Nagar,
North New Street,
Ramanathapuram-623-501.
(Working as LSG SPM);
7. D. Sumathi (age 60),
D/o. C. S. Durai,
No.32, Gandhi Nagar, 2nd Street,
Virudhachalam-606 001
(Retired-LSG SPM);
8. K. Vijaya Chamundeeswari (age 58),
D/o. M. Krishnamurthy,
No.135, Sudhagar Nagar,
Puthrikuppam,
Tiruvendipuram-607 401.
(Working as LSG Postal Assistant);
9. P. V. Vijayalakshmi (age 55),
W/o. S. Sivakumar,
No.117, Chinna Kadai Street,
Tiruvannamalai-606 601.
(Working as LSG Accountant);
10. D. Rajalakshmi (age 55),
W/o. J. Sundar,
No.85/159, Ayyankula Agraharam,
Tiruvannamalai-606 601.
(Working as Office Assistant);
11. S. Ponni (age 58),
W/o. S. Rajendran,
No. 49/6, Kariyan Chetty Street,
Tiruvannamalai - 606 601.
(Working as LSG SPM);
12. P. Balu (age 59),
S/o. P. Pachippan,
No.113, Thiruvoodal Street,
Tiruvannamalai - 606 601.
6 of 69
(Working as LSG SPM);
13. S. Subramanian IV (age 60),
S/o. M. Sivasubramanian,
No.110/A1, North Mariamman Koil Street,
Tiruchendur-628 215.
(Retired-LSG SPM);
14. V. Ashockumar (age 60),
S/o. Veeramani,
No.1/124-A, Nadukootudankadu,
Mangalagiri BO.,
Pudukottai-628 103.
(Retired- LSG SPM);
15. M. K. Sahul Hameed (age 60),
S/o. Mohideen Kadersha,
No.4/5, Rahamath Nagar,
Muthammal Colony,
Tuticorin-628 002
(Retired-LSG OA);
16. S. Jebasingh Packiarajan (age 62),
S/o. P. Samuel,
Church Street,
Anbin Nagaram,
Mudalur-628 702,
(Retired-LSG SPM);
17. U. Rahamathu Nisha (age 60),
W/o. S. Jabarlal,
No. 1/26-10, 1st Street,
Kovilpillai Nagar,
Tuticorin-628 006,
(Retired-OA/PA). ........Applicants
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
7 of 69
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Chennai City Region (TN),
Chennai-600 002;
4. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Tiruchirappalli-621001;
5. The Postmaster General,
Southern Region (TN),
Madurai-625 002;
6. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tuticorin Division,
Tuticorin-628 001;
7. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Ramanathapuram Division,
Ramanathapuram-623 501;
8. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Virudhachalam Division,
Virudhachalam-606 001;
9. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Cuddalore Division,
Cuddalore-607001;
10. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Tiruvannamalai Division,
Tiruvannamalai-606 601. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. K. Rajendran, Sr. CGSC)
8 of 69
3. M.A.310/00858 of 2024 in Diary No.2978 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00192/2026
K. Lakshmipathy (age 66),
S/o. V.. Krishnaswamy,
No.4/66, 12th Cross,
Shanmuga Nagar,
Uyyakondanthirumalai,
Trichy - 620 102.
(Retired LSG Supervisor). ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. R.S. Krishnaswamy )
4. M.A. 863 of 2024 in Diary No. 3088 of 2024 (OA)-O.A.No. 310/00193/2026
R. Baby (age 65),
W/o. G. Ramachandran,
No.5/47, Viswakarma Nagar,
Airport,
Trichy- 620 007.
(Retired LSG Supervisor). ........Applicant
9 of 69
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
5. M.A.310/00864 of 2024 in Diary No.2974 of 2024 (OA)-O.A.No.310/00194/2026
J. John (age 66),
S/o. A. Joseph,
No. 64, St. Mary's Thope,
Kiladhar Street,
Teppakulam PO,
Trichy- 620 002.
(Retired Sorting Assistant).
........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
10 of 69
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
6. M.A.310/00865 of 2024 in Diary No.2953 of 2024 (OA)-O.A.No.310/00195/2026
A. Jeevagan (age 67),
S/o. K. Ayyasamy,
No. 97, M.R.V. Nagar,
9th Cross Street,
Lalpuram,
Chidambaram- 608 602..
........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
11 of 69
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
7. M.A.310/00866 of 2024 in Diary No.3090 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00192/2026
M. Zarina Begum (age 63),
W/o. .A. Raj Babu,
No.5, 4th Street,
Srinivasa Nagar West Extension,
Edamalaipattipudur,
Tiruchirappalli - 620 012..
........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Chennai City Central Region,
12 of 69
Chennai-600 002;
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Chengalpattu Division,
Chengalpattu - 603 001.
... Respondents/Respondents.
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
8. M.A.310/00868 of 2024 in Diary No.3082 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00197/2026
P. Muthurkrishnan (age 63),
S/o. M. Periasamy,
No. 1/1, North Street,
Uyyakondanmalai,
Vayalur Road,
Trichy- 620 102.
(Retired LSG Supervisor). ........Applicant/Applicant.
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
13 of 69
9. M.A. 882 of 2024 in Diary No.3147 of 2024 (OA)-O.A.No. 310/00198/2026
M. Rani (age 61),
W/o. P. Singaiyam,
No. 25, Neheru Street,
Ayyappa Nagar,
Trichy- 620 021.
(Retired LSG PA) ........Applicant/Applicant.
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
10. M.A. 887 of 2024 in Diary No.2956 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00199/2026
S. Narayana (age 67),
S/o. R. Srinivasan,
No. 34, Gopal Nagar,
Pathirikuppam Post,
Thiruvanthipuram PO,
Cuddalore - 607 401. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
14 of 69
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
11. M.A. 888 of 2024 in Diary No.3067 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00200/2026
R. Lakshmi (age 63),
W/o. N. Dhanapal,
4/436, KSS Complex,
Malavarayar Chatram,
Valady (PO),
Triuchy - 621 218. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
15 of 69
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. S. Nagarajan)
12. M.A. 889 of 2024 in Diary No.3038 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00201/2026
S. Selvaraj (age 62),
S/o. R. Subramanian,
No. 219, R.P. Selavam Nagar,
Kumaran Salai,
Mannargudi- 614 001. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
16 of 69
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. ......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. S. Nagarajan)
13. M.A. 904 of 2024 in Diary No.3084 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00202/2026
R. Nalina (age 62),
D/o. P.V.S. Ramanujam,
E- Annai Illam,
Ragavendrapuram,
Srirangam,
Trichy- 620 006.
........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
17 of 69
14. M.A. 905 of 2024 in Diary No.3150 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00203/2026
C.L. Uma (age 59),
W/o. S. Mohan,
No.3, Mettu Street,
Big Natham,
Chengalpattu- 603 002. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
15. M.A. 906 of 2024 in Diary No.27200 of 2024 (OA)-O.A.No. 310/00204/2026
G. Selvanayaki (age 65),
W/o. V. Govindasamy,
A.F. 10, Parsn Gardens,
Moolathoppu,
Melur Road, Srirangam,
Triuchy-620 006. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
18 of 69
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
16. M.A. 910 of 2024 in Diary No.2931 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00205/2026
J. Govindaraj (age 61),
S/o. Janakiraman,
Plot No. 6, Periyar Nagar, 4th Street,
M.C.Road,
Thanjavur-613 007.
........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
19 of 69
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
17. M.A. 911 of 2024 in Diary No.2896 of 2024(oA)-O.A.No. 310/00206/2026
S. Gnanambal (age 65),
W/o. G. Natarajan,
No. 13J, Pasumadam,
T.T. Road,
Woraiyur,
Trichy- 620 003. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
20 of 69
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
18. M.A. 937 of 2024 in Diary No.3135 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00208/2026
R. Gunaseharan (age 60),
S/o. Rajagopal,
2/150, ARN Avenue,
Ponmalai,
Tiruchy- 620 004. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
21 of 69
19. M.A. 973 of 2024 in Diary No.3145 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00210/2026
S. Selvi (age 60),
W/o. R. Sanjeevi,
No. 7/C, Varadhanar Street,
Opp. Head Post Office,
Chengalpattu- 603 001. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. ......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. R.M. Priyadarshini)
20. M.A. 981 of 2024 in Diary No.3161 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00212/2026
P. Chandra Kayalvizhi (age 62),
W/o. A. Mohandass,
No.2/244A, NPS Colony,
Kumbakkudi,
HAPP (PO),
Trichy- 620 025. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
22 of 69
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. ......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
21. M.A. 983 of 2024 in Diary No.3154 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00214/2026
R. Shanthi (age 61),
W/o. N. Ravi Karthikeyan,
15/T-7, Bharani Residency,
Vathukara Street,
Woraiyur,
Tiruchirappalli- 620 003. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
23 of 69
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
22.M.A. 985 of 2024 in Diary No.2955 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00216/2026
S. Josephine Kalarani (age 64),
W/o. J. Antony Raja,
Plot No. 7, Senthamarai Street,
Sanjeevi Nagar,
Tiruchy- 620 002.
........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
24 of 69
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
23. M.A. 1011 of 2024 in Diary No.3364 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00219/2026
R. Rajagopal (age 62),
S/o. (late) Raju,
167B, New Housing Board,
CSI Opposite,
Turaiyur- 621 010. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
5. The Supreintendent of Post Offices,
Srirangam Division,
Srirangam- 620 006. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
25 of 69
24. M.A. 1034 of 2024 in Diary No.3286 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00220/2026
R. Thenmozhi (age 64),
D/o. T.N. Ramanujam,
No. 60, Kurinji Nagar,
Vth Cross,
Maruthandakurichi,
Trichy- 620 102. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. G. Dhamodaran)
25.M.A. 1035 of 2024 in Diary No.3293 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00221/2026
K. Anisha,
D/o. G. Ponni,
No. 117, Thandapani Chetty Street,
Chitakkadu,
Mayiladuthurai- 609 003. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
26 of 69
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. G. Dhamodaran)
26. M.A. 1036 of 2024 in Diary No.3316 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00222/2026
L. Sudha (Age 67),
W/o. S.K. Prabhakar,
4024, Habitat Appaswamy Apartment,
M.R. Radha Garden Road,
(behind Siruseri Sipcot),
Puduppakkam,
Chennai- 603 103. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
27 of 69
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. G. Dhamodaran)
27. M.A. 1037 of 2024 in Diary No.3291 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00223/2026
V. Sivaraju (Age 64),
S/o. S. Vaithilingam,
No.116, Fancy Nagar,
1st Street,
Ponmalaipatti,
Trichy- 620 004. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
28 of 69
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. G. Dhamodaran)
28. M.A. 1038 of 2024 in Diary No.3417 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00224/2026
P. Alice Porutselvi (Age 63),
W/o. (late) C. Krishnan,
No. 3/304, Plot No. 62,
Sri Kuberan Nagar,
Pirathiyur,
Tiruchy- 620 009. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. ......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. G. Dhamodaran)
29 of 69
29. M.A. 1039 of 2024 in Diary No.3064 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00225/2026
V. Geetha (age 64)
D/o. K.N. Viswanathan,
No.9, 3rd Street,
Mangalapuram,
Thanjavur- 613 007 . ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. G. Dhamodaran)
30. M.A. 936 of 2024 in Diary No.3049 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00207/2026
T. Muthulakshmi (age 64)
W/o. P. Boopathy,
Kamarajapuram,
Kallakudi I SO,
Pin- 621 651. .....Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
30 of 69
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. R.M. Priyadarshini)
31. M.A. 938 of 2024 in Diary No.3152 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00209/2026
K. Maruthanayagam (age 63)
S/o. M. Karuppusamy,
No. 38/1, Agraharam Near Sivan Kovil,
Marudur,
Kulithalai Taluk,
Karur District,
PIN- 639 107. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
31 of 69
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Trichirappalli Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001.
.......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. R.M. Priyadarshini)
32. M.A. 980 of 2024 in Diary No.3320 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00211/2026
G. Amsavalli
W/o. P. Gnanprakasam,
No. 17, Sedankuttai Street,
Tindivanam- 604 001. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
32 of 69
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. ......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
33. M.A. 982 of 2024 in Diary No.3163 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00213/2026
A. Salemabe (age 62),
S/o. N. Akbar Hussain,
No. 52, DA Apartment,
Ragavanar Street,
Chengalpattu- 603 001. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
33 of 69
34. M.A. 984 of 2024 in Diary No.3295 of 202(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00215/2026
G. Janakiraman (age 62),
S/o. V. Govindaraju,
E-405, Radiance Mercury,
Gandhi Nagar Society,
Nookakpalayam Road,
Perumbakkam,
Chennai- 600 131. .....Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. ......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
35. M.A. 986 of 2024 in Diary No.3086 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00217/2026
R. Saroja (age 64),
W/o. S. Ramaiah,
No. 7, Subramaniyam Nagar,
Appathurai Road,
34 of 69
Thalakudi- 621 216,
Lalgudi Taluk,
Trichy Distrcit.
........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
36. M.A. 992 of 2024 in Diary No.3166 of 2024(OA)-O.A.No. 310/00218/2026
S. Elamathi Selvakumar (age 53),
W/o. (late) S. Selvakumar,
No. 25, Shantha Flats,
Kesar Nagar,
Kattupakkam,
Chennai- 600 056. ........Applicant/Applicant
(Advocate: M/s. R. Malaichamy)
Versus
35 of 69
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg.
New Delhi-110001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Trichirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
RMS 'T' Division,
Trichirappalli-620 001. .......Respondents/Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC)
37. OA No. 310/001101 of 2021(OA
K. Sankara Narayanan (age 62),
S/o. S. V. Kandasamy,
No.10, Alagar Sannathi,
Nagapattinam-611001
(Retired-LSG SPM). ........Applicant
(Advocate: R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001;
36 of 69
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Thiruchirappalli-620 001;
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nagapattinam Division,
Nagapattinam-611 001. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
38. OA No. 310/001103 of 2021
T.N.Ramana, (age 60),
S/o. A. Narayanasamy,
B-3, Raman Enclave Apartment,
Silapathikara Street,
Thanjavur-613 007.
(Retired-PA on VRS) ........Applicant
(Advocate: R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
37 of 69
Thiruchirappalli-620 001;
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,
Thanjavur Division,
Thanjavur- 611 001. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
39. OA No. 310/001019 of 2021
J. Renuga, (age 59),
D/o. K. Jegannathan,
No.37, Nambiar Nagar Road,
Elancheran Nagar,
Velippalayam,
Nagapattinam- 611 001.
(HSG II, APM Accounts) ........Applicant
(Advocate: R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Thiruchirappalli-620 001;
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nagapattinam Division,
Nagapattinam- 611 001. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
38 of 69
40. OA No. 310/001102 of 2021
R. Baskaran (age 63),
S/o. P. Ramadoss,
No.58, Kulavilakku Street,
Brindavan Nagar,
Panaimedu,
Sikkal-611 108,
Nagapattinam District.
(Retired-PA). ........Applicant
(Advocate: R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Thiruchirappalli-620 001;
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nagapattinam Division,
Nagapattinam- 611 001. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. Su. Srinivasan, Sr. CGSC )
41. OA No. 310/001109 of 2021
V. Janaki (age 59),
D/o. Vijayarahava Iyengar,
M II/27, 9th Street,
39 of 69
Marimalai Nagar,
Kadampadi,
Nagapattinam-611 001.
(Working as LSG SPM) ........Applicant
(Advocate: R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Thiruchirappalli-620 001;
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nagapattinam Division,
Nagapattinam- 611 001. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. S. Nagarajan )
42. OA No. 310/001116 of 2021
R. Thilagavathi (age 57),
D/o. P. Ramasamy,
No.15, Mariam Colony,
Seniyar Kulam Street,
Karaikal-609 602.
(Working as HSG II, APM Counter) ........Applicant
(Advocate: R. Malaichamy)
40 of 69
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001;
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Thiruchirappalli-620 001;
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nagapattinam Division,
Nagapattinam- 611 001. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Mr. S. Nagarajan )
43. OA No. 310/001127 of 2021
K. Ramalingam, (age 64),
S/o. Kothandapani,
No.132, Thai Street,
Ramanathan Nagar,
Tiruvarur-610 001.
(Retired-PA at Tiruvarur)
........Applicant
(Advocate: R. Malaichamy)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Rep. by the Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110 001;
41 of 69
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
Tamil Nadu Circle,
Anna Salai,
Chennai-600 002;
3. The Postmaster General,
Central Region (TN),
Thiruchirappalli-620 001;
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
Nagapattinam Division,
Nagapattinam- 611 001. .......Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
CAV ON : 27.01.2026
42 of 69
ORDER
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J) In all these matters, the nature of case and the relief sought are similar and relate to counting of RTP services for claiming monetary benefits, including TBOP, BCR, MACP, etc. While some cases are already admitted, others are yet to be admitted and pending consideration of inordinate delay in filing OA. However, all these cases were heard together taking O.A.No.147/2021 as the lead case.
2. In O.A.No.147/2021, the following relief is sought: -
"i) To call for the records of the 5th respondent pertaining to his order which is made in Memo No. B1/OA 1513/2019 dated 05.05.2020 (Annexure-8) and the orders of the 4 th respondent which is made in (1) No. B1/ΟΑ 1513/2019 dated 14.05.2020 (Annexure 9) and (2) No. BI/OA 1513/2019 dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure-10) and set aside the same; consequent to
ii) direct the respondents to treat the RTP service of the applicants for the purpose to advance the TBOP, BCR, etc., in accordance with the Directorate instructions contained in letter dated 21.02.2018 and direct the respondents to extend the benefits of judgments made in O.A No. 79 of 2011 and batch cases of the Ernakulam Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 01.10.2013 and the judgments of this Hon'ble Tribunal made in Ο.Α/310/ 01149/ 2014, OA/310/01240/2014 dated 27.06.2019 and ΟΛ/310/00032/ 2016 dated 30.08.2019, consequent to 43 of 69 iiii) direct the respondents to revise and re-fix the pay of the applicants 1 to 5 and also to pay arrears of salary and other monetary benefits to them, further to direct the respondents to revise and re-fix the pay of the 6 th applicant and thereby to revise the retirement service benefits and also to pay the arrears of pay including pension and other service benefits to him, and
iv) To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. The applicants in O.A.No.147/2021 claim that they had initially entered the Postal Department as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants between 1981 & 1984. Applicants 1 to 4 are working as Lower Selection Grade Sub Postmaster/ Assistant Postmaster, 5th applicant is working as Postmaster Grade III and 6th applicant worked as SPM and retired from service on 30.06.2008. The RTP services of all applicants were regularized between the period from 1987 to 1990. During their service, they had earned Time Bound One Promotion / Biennial Cadre Review financial pay upgradation and Modified Assured Carrier Progress.
4. It is further stated that recently, applicants came to know that similarly placed persons like them had approached the coordinate benches of this Tribunal at Ernakulam and Hyderabad seeking to count the period spent by them in RTP PA/SA services as qualifying services for the purpose of grant of TBOP, BCR etc. It is 44 of 69 learnt that Ernakulam Bench had disposed of similar nature of cases in O.A.No.79 of 2011 and batch cases with directions for regularisation of RTP services vide order dated 01.10.2013 and the same was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam in OP (CAT) No. 89 of 2014 (2) and batch cases vide order dated 17/03/2017. Challenge to the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.(s) 25442 of 2017 came to be dismissed vide order dated 10/11/2017. Further, this Tribunal has also allowed similar nature of cases in Ο.Α/310/01149 of 2014 & OA/310/ 01240 of 2014 vide order dated 27.06.2019 and ΟΑ/310/00032 of 2016 vide order dated 30.08.2019. Therefore, applicants claim that they are also entitled to the benefit of judgment of the Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.79 of 2011 and batch cases and the above said judgements.
5. It is stated that applicants had given representations to the respondents requesting them to extend the benefits of the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.79 of 2011 and batch cases, but no order came to be passed and hence, applicants filed Ο.Α. No.310/01513 of 2019 before this Tribunal. The said OA came to be disposed of at the admission stage itself, and vide order dated 19.11.2019, this Tribunal directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the pending individual representations given by the applicants on 07.08.2019, 08.08.2019, 19.08.2019, 21.08.2019 and 03.09.2019 by passing a reasoned and speaking order in the light of the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. 310/00032/2016 dated 30.08.2019 within a 45 of 69 period of three months. Accordingly, respondents have passed speaking order dated 06/08/2020 rejecting their claim which is impugned in this OA.
6. The respondents have filed their reply statement contending that the Reserved Trained Pool was set up in October 1980 as per Circular dated 30 th October, 1980 issued by the office of the Director-General, Indian Posts & Telegraphs Department. This scheme was framed for constitution of a standing pool of trained reserve candidates for the Post and RMS offices. The circular had set out that in many operative offices, the smooth flow of work was hampered by shortage of staff due to absenteeism and other causes and meeting this shortage with overtime arrangements was not always a satisfactory solution. Hence it was decided that a standing pool of trained reserve candidates (RTPs) should be formed in each recruiting unit to meet these short-time recruitment needs. The applicants were selected as Reserved Trained Pool candidates (short duty clerk) and they were engaged to work against the leave vacancies of Postal Assistant in accordance with instructions dated 30.10.1980 without being appointed on regular basis as Postal Assistant as no vacancies were available. Subsequently, applicants were regularly appointed as Postal Assistants and have earned TBOP, BCR, MACPs accordingly.
7. It is further contended that particulars of service rendered by the applicants as RTP and the period for which they worked as RTP at 46 of 69 Tiruppur/Namakkal Tirupattur Division are not available with the respondents and in the relevant office records as they were engaged as Short Duty Assistants against leave vacancies to manage the peak hour traffic. The Service Book of applicants were opened after they joined Postal Assistant cadre on regular basis. Applicants have not produced any documents relating to their appointment as RTP (Reserved Trained Pool) PA/SA in the year 1981, 1983, 1984, etc.
8. It is further contended that the selection of Reserved Trained Pool was made in excess of the vacancies announced, keeping in mind their eventual absorption as Postal Assistant and at no cost, the established strength of the offices is breached on such arrangement of Reserved Trained Pool. Now claiming the service for the Reserved Trained Pool period by the applicants may affect the prospects of other employees recruited before and after the Reserved Trained Pool scheme. Further no records pertaining to such Reserved Trained Pool candidates are available at this distant date. The Reserve Trained Pool Candidates were selected under concrete declaration that their service as Short Duty Staff would not confer any right to claim for seniority or for continuation in the cadre.
9. It is further contended that in C.A. No. 80-123/96 in the case of Union of India Vs Shri Sivadas and others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgement dated 01-08-1997, has held that 'any service rendered by Reserved Trained Pool personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of these 47 of 69 rules, because it cannot be considered as service in any eligible cadre. The said order of Hon'ble Apex Court is binding on the all courts as per provisions of Article 141 of Constitution of India. Based on the said judgement, the Directorate has issued letter. No. 44-1/2011 SPB II dated 12/04/2012 observing that-
'In view of the Judgement dated 01-08-1997 delivered in C.A.No. 80-123 of 1996 in the case of UOI and another Vs K.N. Sivadas and others and provisions contained in the Modified Assured Career Progressive Scheme, the service rendered under Reserved Trained Pool scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistant /Sorting Assistant cannot be counted for promotion, seniority and grant of Time Bound One Promotion/ Modified Assured Career Progressive Scheme.
10. Further, the Directorate has also issued letter No.18-04-2017-SPB-II dated 13.12.2017 to the Chief PMG, Kerala Circle directing that the order of Hon'ble CAT Ernakulam Bench in OA 79/2011 dated 01.10.2013 which was upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No 89/2014 should be implemented only to the applicants of the OA and should not be cited as precedent in other cases.
11. It is further contended that in compliance with the directions issued by this Tribunal on 19.11.2019 in O.A.No.1513/2019, the representations of the applicants were considered in accordance with the Rules and Directorate's instructions on the subject and rejected vide speaking order of 4th respondent in memo No.OA.1513/ 2019 dated 14.05.2020 & 06.08.2020 and of 5th respondent in memo No.BI/OA 1513/ 48 of 69 2019 dated 05:05 2020. Being aggrieved, the applicants have now filed this OA.
12. Heard the counsels on both sides and perused the records.
13. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the judgment of the Ernakulam Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in similar nature of case has attained finality by the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).25442 of 2017 dated 10.11.2017. The OM dated 12.04.2012 relied upon by the respondents 4 and 5 relates to seniority, promotion and MACP but does not relate to the claim of the applicants for advancing TBOP and BCR benefits by taking into account their RTP services. Since the applicants are not claiming seniority or promotion, but only the benefits of the said judgment in the case of K.S.Beena and the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 30.08.2019 passed in OA No.32 of 2016, the respondents could very well advance the TBOP und BCR benefits by counting the RTP service and grant all attendant benefits such as arrears of pay and allowances as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Tribunal which has attained finality through SLP in the case of Mathivanan.
14. It was further submitted that since the claim made by the applicants have attained finality as in the cases of Mathivanan and K.S.Beena, the bar of limitation or principle of delay or laches does not apply in the case of applicants in view of the 49 of 69 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 251= (2010) 12 SCC 538. The learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav and others to contend that similarly aggrieved persons should not be compelled to knock the door of the Hon'ble Courts to seek similar relief. As the impugned orders dated 05.05.2020, 14.05.2020 and 06.08.2020 passed by respondents 4 and 5 rejecting the claim of the applicants and denying the said benefits to them is arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable, the same is laible to be set aside. Accordingly prayed for allowing this OA.
15. The following orders/ decisions are relied upon in support of the case of applicants: -
1. Order in Civil Appeal No. 3156 of 2007 dated 07.10.2009;
2. Order in O.A. No. 79 of 2011 & batch cases (K.S. Beena -
Vs. UOI) CAT, Ernakulam Bench dated 01.10.2013;
3. Order in OP (CAT) No. 89 of 2014 (Z) (UOI -Vs-K.S. Beena ) Kerala High Court dated 17.03.2017;
4. Order in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 25442 of 2017, UOI-Vs. P. Premalatha, (UOI-Vs. K.S. Beena, OP (CAT) 89 of 2014) dated 10.11.2017;
5. Order in WPMP No. 21403 of 2016 in W.P. No. 17400 of 2016 UOI-Vs- V. Ravi Krishna & Ors High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad dated 10.03.2017;
6. Compliance order by Suptd. RMS HR Dvn, Ambala- 133 001 dated 31.07.2014;
7. Compliance order by SPOs, Hanamkonda Dvn, 50 of 69 Hanamkonda on Order in WPMP No.21403 of 2016 in W.P.No.17400 of 2016 dated 10.03.2017;
8. Order in WP Nos. 17400 and 17425 of 2016 (HC:
Hyderabad) dated 27.02.2023;
9. Letter of Addl. Director General (SR & Legal) New Delhi a/w letter 21.06.2023;
10. Order in SLP(C) Dy.No. 1868 of 2024 UOI-Vs- V.Ravi Krishna & ors. (Supreme Court of India) dated 05.02.2024;
11. Letter of Assistant Director (Staff) Telangana Circle dated 28.05.2024;
12. Order in OA.No.3466 of 2019 Raksh Pal Singh & ors -Vs- UOI (CAT, PB, New Delhi) dated 20.09.2023;
13. Order in W.P.(C). 6973 of 2024 UOI-Vs- Raksh Pal Singh & ors. (High Court of Delhi, New Delhi) dated 27.05.2024;
14. SLP (C) No(s) 29726/2024 @ D. No 50170 of 2024 (Uol and others Vs Raksh Pal Singh & ors) dated 10.12.2024;
15. Order in M.Α.No. 180/482/2024 in Ο.Α.Νο. 180/611/2023 V.I. Abdul Rahiman - Vs- UOI CAT, Ernakulam Bench dated 06.12.2024;
16. Order in OA No. 823 of 2020 (Principal Bench) dated 29.08.2024;
17. Order in WPs (C) 7301 and 7412 of 2025 dated 27.05.2025;
18. Letter of ADG (SPN) dated 09.12.2024;
19. Letter of ADG (SPN) dated 07.01.2025;
20. Order in Civil Appeal No.5268 of 1997 (SC) (Union of India & Anr Vs K.N.Sivadass & Ors) dated 01.08.1997;
21. Order in Appeal (Civil) 5739 of 2005 (SC) (Union of India 51 of 69 &Ors - Vs M.Mathivanan) dated 09.06.2006;
22. Order in WP No. 19634 of 2010 (MHC: DB) (UOI and others Vs - M.Kannan and others) dated 14.03.2011;
23. Order in WP Nos.34944 & 33298 of 2016 (MHC: DB) (UOI & others -Vs-The Regitrar, CAT and others) dated 24.07.2019;
24. Order in WP Nos. 13633 of 2020 and batch cases (MHC:
DB) (UOI & others -Vs-The Regitrar, CAT and others) dated 24.01.2023;
25. Order in W.P.(C) 7301 of 2025 & batch cases (Uol-Vs-
Dheeraj Pal) Delhi High Court dated 27.05.2025;
26. Order in SLP (C) Dy. No.51581 of 2025 Uol -Vs- Dheeraj Pal dated 14.11.2025;
27. Order in SLP (C) Dy. No. 59384 of 2025 UOI-Vs-Naresh Kumar and others dated 05.01.2026;
28. Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5082 of 1997 AIR 1997 SC 3588, Constitutional Bench dated 25.07.1997;
29. Judgment in Civil Appeal No.3156 of 2007 Yogendran Shrivastava's case dated 07.09.2009;
30. Judgment in Civil Appeal of 2026 SLP (C) No.24729 of 2019 (Coordinate Bench) dated 05.01.2026.
16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claims of the applicants could not be acceded to as there was no backing of rules for such claims. Under a comprehensive scheme a standing pool of trained reserve candidates was constituted to meet shortage of staff due to absenteeism and other causes and to ensure smooth flow of work in the Post and RMS offices. The policy relating to services of RTPs, counting of services, etc., have been clearly mentioned 52 of 69 in that scheme. Applicants were selected as RTPs and were engaged to carry out short term duties and to handle peak hour traffics on an hourly wage basis work. They were engaged against the leave vacancies of Postal Assistants in accordance with the instructions dated 30.10.1980 issued by the Directorate. As applicants were not appointed on regular basis as Postal Assistants, but were only selected as RTPs under a concrete declaration that their duty as short-duty staff will not confer any right to claim seniority or for continuation in the cadre, they are not entitled to the relief claimed. However, in line with the scheme, all RTP employees including applicants have been absorbed as regular employees by 1990. The absorption of applicants in regular stream was delayed because of ban on recruitment during certain years.
17. It was submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme court has held in the case of Union of India Vs Shri Sivadas and others that any service rendered by Reserved Trained Pool personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of these rules, because it cannot be considered as service in any eligible cadre. Thus, the issue of counting of the services of RTPs has already been decided and based on the decision of Apex Court, the Competent Authority has also decided that the service rendered under RTP scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as PA/SA cannot be counted for promotion, seniority and grant of MACP.
53 of 69
18. It was further submitted that in compliance of the direction given by this Tribunal in OAs 1149 of 2014, 1240 of 2014 and 432 of 2016 to consider the case of the applicants on the basis of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench order in OA 79 of 2011 and Batch cases and the order passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in OP (CAT) 89 of 2014 in K.S. Beena Vs UOI and others, the same was considered and vide Directorate letter no 18-04-2017-SPB-II dated 13.12.2017, it has been decided that the order of Hon'ble CAT Ernakulam Bench in OA 79 of 2011 dated 01.10.2013 as upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No 89 of 2014 should be implemented only to the applicants in that OA and should not be cited as precedent in other cases. Therefore, the Ld. counsel contended that the claim of the applicants to extend the benefits of the order passed in OA 79/2011 is not tenable. Further, the orders of this Tribunal in OA.Nos. 1149 of 2014, 1240 of 2014 and 32 of 2016 have not been implemented but respondents have challenged the same in W.P. Nos.188 of 2021, 13633 of 2020 & WP 1373 of 2021, respectively. The Hon'ble Madras High Court has issued interim stay against the said orders and the matter is still pending.
19. It was also submitted that in the instant case, the cause of action originally arose immediately after 1989. However, applicants did not raise any of these issues in all these years. The applicants have approached the authorities in 2019 after a period of about 30 years by way of representations. Applicants were not vigilant and did not approach the competent forum immediately, within a reasonable time after the 54 of 69 cause of action arose. As there is an inordinate delay of more than 30 years, applicants cannot be allowed to come so belatedly to the court /tribunal on the basis of the relief obtained by some other similarly placed persons who were vigilant and had approached the court /tribunal earlier. Ld. counsel submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "fence sitters are not entitled to seek similar relief on the ground of Article 14" and that "delay and latches disentitle the litigant seeking courts/tribunal discretionary relief". It is further submitted that applicants had earlier filed OA 1513 of 2019 seeking the same relief and the same was disposed of by this Tribunal with the directions to respondents to consider their representations by a reasoned speaking order, which have been duly complied with. As the instant OA on the same grounds is completely barred by Res-judicata, the same is not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the OA.
20. Additional reply statement has been filed reiterating their stand in the matter. The following decisions are relied upon in support of the case of respondents: -
1. In the case of D.C.S Negi v. Union of India reported in (2018) 16 721 SCC, Paras 13 and 14, Under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Tribunal must examine limitation at the threshold and cannot decide the OA on merits without recording satisfaction or regarding limitation condonation, even if no objection is raised by the respondents;
2. In the case of Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC 55 of 69 59, Paras 15 &16, A belated representation or a direction to consider such representation does not revive a stale or dead claim, nor does rejection of such representation give rise to a fresh cause of action;
3. Union of India v. C. Girija reported in (2019) 15 SCC 633, Paras 16 - 18, Repeated representations and replies thereto do not extend limitation or create a fresh cause of action; stale service claims remain barred by limitation;
4. In the case of Chief Executive Officer v. S. Lalitha, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in it order dated 24.04.2025, paras 35-37, Service claims relating to ACP/MACP or financial benefits raised after long delay are barred under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, non- statutory representationsdo not postpone limitation;
5. In the case of Union of India v A. Durairaj reported in (2010) 14 389 SCC paras 12-16, Long- delayed service claims seeking retrospective benefits/ promotion are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches;
6. In the case of Ρ.Κ. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala reported in (1997) 7 SCC 556, paras 5 &6, Condonation of delay is not of matter course 'sufficient cause' must be and strictly established and delay cannot be condoned on sympathetic considerations;
56 of 69
7. In the case of State of Kerala v. Krishnan N.V. Reported in CA No 10898/2025, decided on 19.08.2025, paras 8-10, A claim filed more than a decade after retirement seeking promotion or arrears on par with junior is barred by gross delay and laches:
repeated representations do not revive a dead cause of action,
8. In the case of State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 (paras 22.1- 22.3), Relief ordinarily accrues only to parties before the court, fence-sitters who sleep over their rights are not entitled to parity unless the judgment is in rem or intended to apply generally.
9. In the case of Chairman-cum-MD, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ram Gopal reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225, Para 13, Delay defeats equitable relief, extension of parity depends upon the nature of the judgment (in rem or in personam explained) and the diligence of the claimant;
10. In the case of Union of India v. Chaman Rana reported in (2018) 5 SCC 798, Paras 8-10, A subsequent judgment or clarification does not furnish a fresh cause of action to revive a stale or time- barred service claim;
11. In the case of Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Udham Singh Kamal reported in (1999) 8 SCC 304, paras 6-8, Limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative 107 Tribunals Act is mandatory, where delay is not properly condoned, the Tribunal cannot grant relief ignoring statutory limitation;
57 of 69
12. In the case of Senior Divisional Manager. LIC v. Shree Lal Meena reported in (2019) 4 SCC 479, Paras 37-42, Petitioner remained silent for few years after particular favourable judgement, made claim, after sleeping over 2 years, claim rejected;
13. In the case of Mool Chandra v.Union of India reported in 2025 (1) SCC 625, Paras 14 & 23, At the stage of condonation of delay, the court must primarily examine whether sufficient cause exists and should not undertake an elaborate adjudication on merits;
14. In the case of C. Naganathan v. Union of India (CAT, Chennai) reported in MA.No.310/00153/2023 decided 21.11.2025, Paras 13 & 20, delay of 690 days was not condoned as no satisfactory explanation constituting 'sufficient cause' was shown: the proceedings failed solely on limitation;
15. In the case of Lance Dafadar Joginder Singh Vs UOI reported in 1995(Supp) 232, An Original Application filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, without an accompanying application seeking condonation of delay, cannot be entertained on merits, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant relief notwithstanding the merits of the claim or subsequent explanations, and any order passed ignoring the bar under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is liable to be set aside;
58 of 69
16. In the case of Union of India v. CAT, Chennai reported in WP Nos 13633 of 2020 batch, decided 24.01.2023 (Madras HC), paras 5, 11 & 12, Pre-regular RTP service cannot be mechanically counted for seniority or financial upgradation:
belated claims are liable to fail on delay, laches and scheme limitations;
17. In the case of Union of India v CAT, Chennai reported in WP No. 1373 of 2021, decided 04.11.2024 (Madras HC), paras 11-13, RTP service prior to regular absorption cannot ordinarily be counted for subsequent service benefits; parity based on others' cases is not automatic, particularly in belated claims;
18. In the case of Sk. Md. Noman v. Union of India (CAT, PB) reported in 2025 SCC OnLine CAT 590, para 18, RTP claims raised after enormous delay and after accepting terms of regularisation are barred; acquiescence and delay defeat parity- based claims.
19. In the case of K. Anjinidevi v Union of India (CAT Hyderabad) reported in OA Nos 27 & 317 of 2018, paras 16-19, belated RTP parity claims raised long after absorption or settlement of benefits are barred by delay and laches, benefit granted to others does not confer an automatic right;
20. In the case of Purna Chandra Pradhan Vs UOI & Ors.
reported in OA No. 260/ 316-260/514 of 2020 Cuttack Bench Order dated 30.04.2024, paras 8 to 9.2, Bench declined to grant 59 of 69 relief of counting past service rendered as RTP for the purpose of TBOP/ BCR on the ground of delay AMD limitation;
21. In the case of Union of India v. Raksh Pal Singh reported in WP(C) No.6973 of 2024, decided 27.05.2024 (Delhi HC), para 4, a non-jurisdictional decision; its persuasive value must be tested against binding Supreme Court limitation jurisprudence and jurisdictional Madras High Court rulings, and is at best distinguishable."
21. We have considered the submissions made by the counsels on both sides.
22. The relief claimed by the applicants is to count their RTP services to advance TBOP, BCR, etc., and to extend the benefit of the judgement of Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal dated 01/10/2013 in O.A.No.79/2011 and batch cases and the judgements of this Tribunal in O.A.149/2014 and other cases.
23. It is observed that the Ernakulam Bench judgement (Supra) has been considered by the jurisdictional Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.13633/2020 and in para 10 of its judgement dated 24/01/2023, it has held as under: -
"10. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the financial burden of implementing such a decision which has no element of legal justification. The Tribunal entirely relied on the decision of Union of India Vs. M. Mathivanan case interpreting that the said Mathivanan was also 60 of 69 a RTP candidate and just because he was absorbed in Army Postal Service he was considered favourably for grant of TBOP. The Tribunal had concluded RTPs whether in APS are regular postal services are equal and should be considered at par. It can be easily comprehended that this was one rare such case and can be only an exception and cannot be a rule. In fact in the said judgment the Apex Court took cognizance of the regularisation made consequent upon the appointment of the said Mathivanan in the Army Postal Service on regular basis which according to the Apex Court was clearly the date of regularisation. If the arguments of the respondents is to be taken into consideration the 16 year period (for TBOP) in the case of Mathivanan should have been 1997 and not 1999 as approved by the Apex Court. Thus, it is clear that 16 year period for TBOP was calculated only from the date of regularisation and not from the date of initial appointment in RTP. The decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, was definitely based on a wrong interpretaions of the two Apex Court decisions in the cases of K.N.Sivadas and Mathivanan.".
24. In M Mathivan's case (Supra), it is observed that Mr. M Mathivan was selected for recruitment to the cadre of Postal Assistant on 28/12/1981 and was placed in Reserve Training Pool and in August 1983, he had volunteered for enrolment in Army Postal Service and in September 1983, while he was working in Reserve Training Pool as Postal Assistant, he was asked to appear for selection in Army Postal Services and was selected as Warrant Officer with effect from 30/09/1983. An Order was 61 of 69 passed by the President of India appointing him as Warrant Officer with effect from 30/09/1983. Therefore, Apex Court held that what was required to be established by him was that he had completed sixteen years of service in the grade and the said requirement had been complied with in view of the fact that with effect from September 30, 1983 he was appointed as Warrant Officer. Therefore, the Hon'ble Madras High Court had observed that even in Mathivanan's case, for the purpose of counting 16 years for TBOP benefit, the Apex Court had considered only the date of Mathivan's appointment as warrant officer (which was on 30/09/1983) and not the date of his initial appointment in RTP services (which was on 28/12/1981).
25. In this case, the respondents have categorically stated that applicants were selected as RTP PA and regularly appointed during 1987 to 1990 and have earned TBOP, BCR, MACPs accordingly. The Service book of applicants were opened after they joined the Postal Assistant cadre on regular basis. The applicants have been given all benefits from the date of their regular appointment. The period for which they worked as RTP PA at Tiruppur/ Namakkal Tirupattur Division are not available with the respondents. The applicants have not produced any documents relating to their appointment as RTP PA/SA in the year 1981, 1983,1984, etc. For almost 30 years from the date of their regular appointment till 2019, applicants did not make any request or claim, nor gave any representation. Only in 2019, applicants gave representations and approached this Tribunal in OA 1513/2019. The OA was 62 of 69 disposed of at the admission stage vide order dated 19/11/2019 giving a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of their representations in the light of the order passed by the Ernakulam Bench. Accordingly, their represenatations were considered and their claim for counting the period of service rendered as RTP candidate for regularisation, seniority and consequential benefits were rejected by respondents by passing speaking orders which are impugned in this OA.
26. From the foregoing paragraphs, it is clear that the issue regarding the eligibility of applicants to claim monetary benefit with retrospective effect has already been decided by the jurisdictional Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.13633/2020 as well as the Apex Court. The Madras High Court has considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India Vs K N Sivadas and others (Supra) wherein it is held that 'any service rendered by Reserved Trained Pool personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count because it cannot be considered as service in any eligible cadre'. The Madras High Court has also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India vs Gandiba Behera in C.A.No.8497/2009 wherein it has clearly spelt out that pre-dating regularisation is not acceptable.
27. As regards the issue of delay and laches, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P. No. 13633 of 2020 and batch has observed in its judgement dated 24/01/2023, as under: -
63 of 69 "11. Now coming to the aspect of delay in claiming the benefit with retrospective effect, it is to be noted that though there is no specified time limit stipulated under any Act, the delay cannot be unexplained and unreasonable. In the present cases, it is seen that the respondents have neither challenged the ban on recruitment which according to them was the main cause of their belated regularisation nor given any representation to the petitioners seeking such relief immediately after their regularisation. It was only in the year 1996 that one of their colleagues had approached the appropriate legal forum to settle his issue of seeking similar benefits as provided for the casual labourers. The present respondents did not approach the employers with any representation even till 2013. It was only thereafter, they followed it up with OAs in Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in 2014. This aspect of delay and laches is very important. In fact the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. C. Girija & Others, Meena Baskar vs. C. Girija & Others, C. Girija vs. Union of India & Others in Civil Appeal Nos. 1577, 1578 of 2019 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.653 of 2015, observed that -
"13. This Court again in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59 on belated representation laid down the following, which is extracted below:-
"15. When a belated representation in regard to a "stale" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the 64 of 69 court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches."
14. Again, this Court in State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others, (2013) 12 SCC 179 had occasion to consider question of delay in challenging the promotion. The Court further held that representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance does not give rise to a fresh following was laid down:-
"19. From the aforesaid authorities it is clear as crystal that even if the court or Tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix.
Similarly, a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time."
This phrase that a dead cause of action cannot "rise like a 65 of 69 phoenix" is very much applicable to the present facts of the case. In fact, as pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners such decisions without giving thought to the financial implications and practicality would only put the entire machinery of the petitioners under huge stress. There is also a possibility of such decisions being taken up by other departments and even by casual labourers and it would just be an endless stream of representations and litigations. The financial implications could be very stressful for an organisation like the petitioners' and merely because it is wholly owned by the Government of India does not entail implementations of such huge avoidable expenditure merely to comply with the directions of the Tribunal. The direction of the Tribunal to work out backwards from 1984 and implement such an exercise that when number of RTP was practically only a reserved list consisting of 50% of the main vacancies defies any logic. The primary object of the RTP was intended only to reduce the expenditure on overtime and also ensure smooth flow of work even in the exigency of absenteeism. But the impugned decisions of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench would defeat the very purpose and concept of RTP. The respondents were not recruited as regular Postal Assistants and their appointment dates cannot be taken for calculating their service for any benefit. The only difference between the candidates under RTP and casual labourers was the assurance of regularisation. Having got an advantageous start in the beginning of their career, it appears that their demand for considering their service for all purposes including TBOP from the date of their initial appointment shows only the greed in 66 of 69 them. As already elaborated the ban on recruitment was not the decision of the petitioners and the demands of the respondents smacks of unreasonableness. Again, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General, the Government of India's exchequer cannot be allowed to bleed to meet out such illogical demands and therefore, the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, are unacceptable and without any rationale. In this context, it is also pertinent to point out that the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No.1410/1995 was set aside by Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.80-123/1996 wherein it was held that "Any service which was rendered prior to regular appointment in the cadre, cannot count for the purpose of this rule because it cannot be considered as service in any eligible cadre. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in granting to RTPs the benefit of service rendered by them prior to their regular appointment, for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental promotion examination."
12. In view of the forgoing decision, it could be easily concluded that the decisions in all the OAs have been arrived at by the decision of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench which was confirmed later by Kerala High Court. All the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, suffer from lack of application of mind on their part as they have not gone into merits and demerits of such an unprecedented decision. The delay of more than 3 decades would have resulted in many 67 of 69 retirements on superannuation amongst the respondents and such a massive exercise of searching the records and arriving at even the minute details like break in service etc. is just next to impossible that too when the demands of the respondents are totally unethical and unreasonable.".
28. In another subsequent case in W.P.No.1373/2021, the Hon'ble Madras High Court, relying on the above decision, has observed in its order dated 04/11/2024, as under: -
"9. Since, the issues are already covered and the coordinate division Bench of this Court elaborately considered the inordinate delay in approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal as well as the eligibility for claiming the monetary benefit with retrospective effect from the date of recruitment, it become unnecessary for us to reconsider those issues. However, the legal principles settled is that the regular monetary benefits granted under TBOP and MACP-II are to be granted with effect from the date of regular appointment of an employee. In other words, an employee after becoming a member of regular service is eligible for all service benefits under the Rules.".
29. Thus, the facts contended herein are very much similar to the one decided by the jurisdictional Madras High Court. Just like applicants in that case, in the present case also, applicants claim that they were regularised belatedly in the year 1987 to 1990 on account of ban on recruitment, but they never challenged either the ban on recruitment or their belated regularisation. They did not give any representation 68 of 69 immediately after their regularisation or at any time thereafter within a reasonable period seeking the relief now claimed. It is only after coming to know of the Ernakulam Bench Judgement that they gave represenatation in the year 2019 and approached this Tribunal in 2019, much belatedly than the applicants in the case before the Madras High Court who had approachad the Tribunal in 2014 itself. Admittedly, the applicants are fence-sitters and are not eligible for the relief claimed.
30. In this regard, in the case of State of UP and others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivatsava, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 17.10.2014 in C.A.No. 9849 of 2014, while considering Article 14 and delay and latches, and referring to its earlier judgement in U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs Jaswant Singh and another [2006 (11) SC 464], observed that 'the principle that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of latches and delays as well as acquiescence and held as under: -
"Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters, and latches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim...".
69 of 69
31. Recently, this is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damor Nanabhai Manabhai & Ors. vs The State of Gujarat & Ors. in SLP(C)No.5619/2024 with SLP(C)No.4044/2025 vide order dated 02/12/2025.
32. Since all the legal issues involved herein have already been considered and decided by the jurisdictional Madras High Court and the Apex Court, as stated above, there is nothing else which requires our consideration.
33. In the result, O.A.No.147/2021 is dismissed. Consequently, all other OAs listed herein are also dismissed.
34. All MAs pending consideration for condonation of delay are hereby dismissed and consequently, OAs at diary stage are also dismissed. Registry is directed to number these OAs for record purposes.
35. No order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
17 .02.2026
asvs Digitally signed by
A.S.V. Sagar ASAPU SRINIVASA
P.S., CAT, VIDYASAGAR
Chennai Bench. Date: 2026.03.20
10:53:44 +05'30'