Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Kanisk Kumar Lal vs Post Up Circle on 19 March, 2026
O.A. No.330/997 of 2024
(Reserved on 11.03.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 19th day of March, 2026
Original Application No.997 of 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
1. Kanisk Kumar Lal, a/a 64 years, S/o late Ram Charitra Lal, R/o
H. No.SA3/96-A3K, Viveka Nand Nagar Colony Lalpur, Varanasi
2. Chandra Bhusan Upadhyay, a/a 62 years, S/o Jai Ram
Upadhyay, R/o SA5/135 SPC Bajarang Nagar Colony,
PUNIT
KUMAR
MISHRA
Pandeypur, Varanasi
3. Mahendra Kumar Kushwaha, a/a 64 years, S/o Late Vijay
Prakash, R/o SH 17/292, E-1, Indrapur Shivpur Tarana, Varanasi
4. Narendra Singh, a/a 62 years, S/o late Kamla Prasad Singh, R/o
Ashok Vihar Colony Phase-2, Flat No.E/150, Pahariya Sarnath,
Varanasi
5. Dhirendra Nath Mishra, a/a years S/o late Ram Gulab Mishra,
R/o village Kargupur, Post Hathi Bazar, District Varanasi
6. Ramesh Chandra Mishra II a/a years, S/o Awadh Narain Mishra,
R/o Village Buschi, Post Rajpur (Babatpur R.S) Varanasi
7. Ravish Kumar Srivastava, a/a years S/o Data Prasad Srivastava,
R/o House No. SA-6/186, f-11k(d-16) Shree Nagar Colony,
Akatha, Paharia, Varanasi
8. Sanjeev Gaur, a/a 61 years, s/o Sri Kailash Pati, R/o S/o KP
Gaur, LEN 2/15, Kard Meshwar Nagar Kandawa, Varanasi
9. Keshav Ram, a/a 61 years, S/o Bideshi, R/o Anantpur,
Mangalpur, Banakat Newada, Varanasi
10. Ram Kumar, a/a 61 years, S/o Pashupati Ram, R/o C/o
Pashupati Ram, Samalkot, Parsipur, Bhadohi
....Applicants
By Advocate: Shri B.N. Singh
VERSUS
Page 1 of 13
O.A. No.330/997 of 2024
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Communication
(I & T), Sansad Marg, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Chief Post Master General UP Circle, Lucknow
3. The Supdt. Of Post Offices, Varanasi, West Division, Varanasi
... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicants, who are 10 in numbers for the following reliefs:
(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and direct the respondents to count their services rendered as Reserve Trained Pool for purpose of granting the financial up gradation under time bound one promotion scheme and the modified assured career progression scheme the past service since initial appointment w.e.f. 08.02.1983 for purpose of pension and all other consequential benefits including seniority and pay fixation (DCRG, leave incashment, pay fixation, seniority, revised pension) and same shall be paid 12 % interest on the entire sum from the due date. ;
(ii) to issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to count service since initial appointment for benefit of TBOP after complete of 16 years service and pay in higher scale.
(iii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to count the service since initial appointment for purpose of benefit of MACP.
(iv) to issue a suitable order or direction to pay the same salary and emoluments per mensem as are being received by postal assistant with effect from the date of their appointment and pay arrears.
(v) to pass such other and further order as this Hon'b le Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The brief facts as stated in the Original Application is that the applicants participated a selection process during the existence of a Page 2 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 Scheme call as Reserve Trained Pool (hereinafter referred as RTP Scheme). The applicants were selected for the post of Reserve Trained Pool Postal Assistant. The appointment of the applicants were made as provisional basis and as such, the applicants completed all the required conditions as per Notification dated 13.10.1982 and after verification, they joined as Postal Assistant vide order dated 08.02.1983. The applicant also completed training. Subsequently, all the applicants were regularized as Postal Assistant on different dates between 1988 to 1989. However, their services as RTP before regularization, have not PUNIT been counted by the respondents for any service benefits including KUMAR MISHRA career progression.
3.1 The applicants were superannuated from services after attaining the age of superannuation on different dates from Varanasi West Division from the post of Postal Assistant and other posts, but their initial services as RTP prior to regularization have not been counted for service benefits. Some similarly situated persons approached the various Bench of this Tribunal from time to time and the Tribunal has allowed the claim of similar situated persons in those Original Applications. The applicants also represented before the respondents, but no heed was paid. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.
4. On the other hand, counter reply was filed on 03.04.2025, wherein it has been stated that all the applicants were initially recruited as RTP in Postal Department vide Memo dated 08.02.1983. They were allotted to Varanasi West Division and subsequently, regularized on 31.03.1993 vide memo No. B-2/61 of SPOs Varanasi West Division. It is very pertinent to mention here that Department vide letter no. 60/36/80-SPB-II dated 30.10.1980 had introduced RTP scheme for Page 3 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant in Postal and RMS Divisions with a view to ensure smooth flow of work in operative offices, which at times was hampered due to absence and other causes and meeting with staff shortage with overtime arrangement was not found to be a satisfactory solution.
4.1 As per this scheme, at the time recruitment in each recruiting unit, after the main select list for the number of available vacancies is dawn up, a specific additional reserve list of candidates equal in number to fifty percent of the number of candidates in the main PUNIT KUMAR select list was to be drawn up. The candidates in the reserve list were MISHRA also imparted the requisite training like the candidates in the main list. Thus, the candidates in the reserve list constituted a standing pool of trained reserve, which were to be eventually absorbed as regular employees as and when vacancies arise. Till such time as they were given regular appointment, their services were to be used as short duty staff against vacancies due to absence or other reasons and also for handling peak hour traffic. They were to be employed for a maximum of eight hours per day. It was laid down in the said scheme that since the Reserve Trained Pool candidates were recruited as a stand-by over and above the vacancies announced at the time of recruitment, these surplus recruited candidates were to be given priority of absorption against vacancies for subsequent recruitment. This scheme was discontinued vide letter no. 60-31/81-SPB-I dated 04.03.1986. 4.2 The RTP scheme did not envisage any right for counting of RTP service rendered prior to regular appointment, for any purpose. As per the Scheme, the constitution of standing pool of trained reserve candidates was made to meet the emergent needs of manpower in Page 4 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 Post Offices and RMS Office, for ensuring smooth flow of work in operative offices.
4.3 The Scheme did not provide for automatic absorption of reserve list candidates into Department but provided absorption of reserve list candidates into the Department in future vacancies regular employees in the manner set out in the scheme. RTP candidates were much aware of the fact that they were not regular appointees and they would be paid wages on hourly basis only.
4.4 The applicants retired from service and it is alleged by PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA them that the period served on daily wages @ Rs. 2.75 per hour till regular absorption during RTP period has not been counted as qualifying service, even though they have completed prescribed training and thereafter joining in duty of Postal Assistant, for the purpose of pension and other consequential benefits. 4.5 The Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5268/97 (SLP (C) No. 17422/95) CA No. 126/96, 124-125/96, 127-130/96 & 131/96) passed in case of Shri K.N. Sivadas & ors had clearly held vide judgment dated judgment dated 01.08.1997 that any service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of the said rule because it cannot be considered as service in any eligible case.
4.6 The High Court of Madras in WP No. 13633/2020 and 1540, 289 & 188/2021 and WP No. 16929/2020, 1743,2588361/2021 had dismissed similar case vide its order dated 24.01.2023. The Original Application is barred by law of limitation. Hence, Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
Page 5 of 13
O.A. No.330/997 of 2024
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 18.07.2025, wherein reiterated the same averments as made in Original Application.
6. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 11.11.2025, reiterating the averments as made in counter affidavit.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the services rendered by the applicants as RTP prior to regularization ought to have been counted for service benefits including for grant of PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA MACP in view of order passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of This Tribunal, which was affirmed up to the Apex Court. 7.1 He further submitted that the issue involved in this Original Application has already decided by the CAT Principal Bench at New Delhi in case of Dheeraj Pal & Ors. Vs. Union of India in O.A. No.823/2024, wherein the benefits of services rendered by RTPs has been extended to similarly placed persons for the purposes of financial benefits. The aforesaid order was affirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) No.7301/2025 & another analogous cases vide order dated 27.05.2025. The order of Delhi High Court was also affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.59384/2025 vide its judgment dated 05.01.2026.
7.2 Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that once the issue has been decided, it was obligatory at the end of the respondents to extend the benefits to all similarly placed persons and not to compel all the similarly placed persons to approach the Courts and Tribunal. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Page 6 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 Srivastava & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.9849/2014 vide its judgment dated 17.10.2014.
7.3 Learned counsel for the applicants placed heavy reliance on the following orders/judgments:-
i. K. Manohara/V Ravi Krishna & Ors. Vs. Union of India, passed by CAT Hyderabad vide its order dated 15.04.2015, which was affirmed by the High Court of Telngana vide its order dated 27.02.2023 in W.P. No.17400/2016 and also affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 05.02.2024 in SLP (Civil) No.1868/2024 ii. K.S. Beena & Ors. Vs. Union of India passed by CAT Ernakulum vide its order dated 01.10.2013, which was affirmed by the High Court of Kerala vide its order dated PUNIT 17.03.2017 in OP Nos.89, 95, 101, 102, 112, 114, KUMAR MISHRA 117/2024 and also affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 10.11.2017 in SLP (civil) No.25442/2017.
iii. Vijay Kumar Upadhyay & ors. Vs. UOI & Ors. passed by CAT Jabalpur Bench vide its order dated 02.05.2019, which was affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in W.PS No.1912/2021 vide its order dated 04.04.2025 and also affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 29.08.2025 in SLP (civil) No.35662/2025.
7.3 Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that this case may also be disposed of in view of the observations as made in O.A. No. 823/2020 passed by CAT Principal Bench, New Delhi, which was affirmed up to Apex Court.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents, by referring to the assertions made in the counter reply as well as written argument argued that earned the applicants were initially recruited as RTP candidates in the Postal Department vide Memo dated 08.02.1983 and were allotted to the Varanasi West Division. They were subsequently regularized as Postal Assistants on 31.03.1993 vide Memo No. B-2/61 issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Varanasi West Division.
8.1 He further submitted that the RTP Scheme was introduced by the Department vide letter dated 30.10.1980 to meet temporary staff Page 7 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 shortages and ensure smooth functioning of Post Offices and RMS offices. Under the scheme, reserve list candidates were trained and utilized on an hourly wage basis to meet emergent requirements and peak workload. The scheme did not provide any right for automatic absorption or for counting the service rendered prior to regular appointment for pensionary or other benefits. The scheme was later discontinued on 04.03.1986.
8.2 Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the applicants were fully aware that they were not regular PUNIT KUMAR employees during the RTP period and were paid wages on an hourly MISHRA basis. Therefore, the claim of the applicants that the RTP period should be counted as qualifying service for pension and other consequential benefits is not tenable.
8.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicants, who have obtained the benefit of absorption into regular services because of RTP Scheme cannot at the same time claim additional benefits on the basis of what has been given to the Casual Labourers.
8.4 Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N. Sivadas & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5268/1997) decided on 01.08.1997, wherein it was held that service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment cannot be counted as qualifying service. It was also submitted that a similar claim was dismissed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide order dated 24.01.2023.
8.5 Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments in his written argument:- Page 8 of 13
O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 I. Purna Chandra Pradhan Vs. Union of India, passed in O.A. No.316/2020 passed by CAT Cuttack Bench vide its order dated 30.04.2024 II. Pradeep C.C. & Ors. Vs. Union of India passed in O.A. No.492/2018 & other analogous cases passed by CAT Ernakulam Bench vide order dated 22.03.2024 III. Union of India & Ors. Vs. The Registrar, CAT, Chennai passed by High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P No.1373/2021 vide its order dated 04.11.2024 IV. Union of India & Ors.Vs. A Durairaj (Dead) by LRS by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1783/2005 vide its order dated 01.12.2010 V. All India Postal Employees Union Vs. Union of India & Ors.
passed by CAT Jabalpur Bench vide its order dated 16.12.1986.
VI. Bipin Bihari Dutta Vs. Union of India & Ors. passed by High PUNIT Court of Judicature at Patna vide its order dated 28.02.2012. KUMAR MISHRA 8.6 Accordingly, it was argued by counsel for the respondents that the Original Application is devoid of merit and is also barred by limitation and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
9. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
10. From perusal of the records, it appears that the issue involved in this Original Application is now no more res integra as the similar issue fell for consideration before CAT Principal Bench in case of Dheeraj Pal's case (supra) and CAT Principal Bench vide its order 29.08.2024 has clearly held as under:-
11. In the case of Raksh Pal Singh (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has considered the order/judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016, wherein paras 8 to 10 read as under:-
"8. The facts of the instant O.A are examined in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016. It is seen that the facts, circumstances and prayer of the applicants have conclusively been decided by the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telengana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016. However, the benefit of the same could not be extended to the applicants as the directions Page 9 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 were specific and they were not party to the said Writ Petition. It is also noteworthy to mention that once the applicants have preferred their representations in terms of directions passed in OA No.4196/2018 and at the relevant time when the same were considered and decided, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad was there, the respondents ought to have decided the same in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court. The only reason for non grant of the benefit was that the applicants were not party to that Writ Petition and the same is misplaced. While deciding the Writ Petition, the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana had observed as under :-
"7. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal has followed the judgment, dated 16.12.1986, passed in T.A. No.82 of 1986 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalapur Bench, which was PUNIT upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. KUMAR MISHRA 11313 of 1987, dated 11.05.1988, and even the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, has directed the respondents therein to follow the judgment of the Jabalpur Bench only. Therefore, there is no confusion at all for the petitioners to file the present Writ Petitions. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the Tribunal."
9. From the above, it is clear that the Hon'ble High Court at Telangana was guided by the decision in SLP No. 11313/1987 decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 11.05.1988. It is settled preposition of law that in the matter of pay scales, the respondents were obliged to follow the dicta of the Hon ble Supreme Court followed by the Hon'ble High Courts/Tribunals. The respondents were obliged to extend the benefit to the applicants suo motu. The applicants have been unnecessarily forced to approach the Tribunal.
10. For the reasons quoted hereinabove, the OA is allowed with a direction to the respondents, to extend the benefit to the applicants in terms of the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana in WP No.17400 and 17425 of 2016. The applicants shall be entitled for grant of all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including MACP and pension, which shall be fixed accordingly, wherever applicable. There shall be no order as to costs."
12. In the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 22 has held as under:-
*22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under.
22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and Page 10 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently."
13. In view of the aforesaid facts binding precedent, the OA deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with following directions:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 08.01.2020 and 10.01.2020 are quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at PUNIT Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in KUMAR MISHRA present OA.
(iii) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.
(iv) The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
11. The order passed in case of Dheeraj Pal (supra) has already been affirmed by the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 27.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No.7301/2025 & 7412/2025. Relevant para is quoted as under:-
7. As far as the challenge on merits is concerned, this Court by its Judgment in Raksh Pal Singh (supra), has already dismissed a similar challenge of the petitioners. Furthermore, and as noted hereinabove, the Special Leave Petition thereagainst has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Being a Bench of coordinate strength, we are bound by the Judgment.
8. On the question of delay and laches, we again find no merit in the petition.
9. This Court in Raksh Pal Singh (supra), was considering the OA(s) filed by the respondents therein in the year 2020, wherein the learned Tribunal, placing reliance on an Order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.(C) 17400/2016, against which SLP(C) Diary No. 1868/2024 was dismissed keeping the question of law open, held that the respondents therein would be entitled to have their services, rendered as Reserve Trained Pool from 1983 to 1985, counted for the purpose calculation of financial benefits. This Court upheld the learned Tribunal's decision, noting that other similarly situated individuals had already been granted such benefits for Page 11 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 their service in the Reserve Trained Pool, and there was no justification for denying the same to the respondents.
10. We agree with the above findings. There cannot be a different yardstick for different members of the service, requiring each one of them to approach the Court for similar benefits. In our view, the Judgment in the present case would apply in rem and therefore, the benefit should have been extended by the petitioners to all the similarly situated personnel.
11. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of as being rendered infructuous
12. The Delhi High Court considered all the grounds and held that judgment in that case would apply in rem and therefore, the benefit should been extended by the petitioners to all the similarly situated PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA personnel.
13. The aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court is affirmed by the Apex Court in CLP (C) Diary No.51581/2025 vide its judgment dated 14.11.2025 as well as SLP (C) No.59384/2025 vide its order dated 05.01.2026.
14. In view of judicial pronouncement, the applicants are also entitled for similar benefits as has been given to applicants of O.A. No. 823/2020 (Sh. Dheeraj Pal & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) passed by the CAT Principal Bench vide its order dated 29.08.2024 and applicants of O.A. No.779 & 780/2013 passed by CAT Hyderabad Bench, which was also affirmed by the Apex Court.
15. So far as judgments relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are concerned, the same are not applicable in the instant case as the Delhi High Court while affirming the order of CAT Principal Bench in O.A. No.823/2020, held that the judgment was in rem.
16. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the orders passed in O.A. No.823/2020 passed by CAT Principal Bench as well as O.A. No.779 & 780/2013 passed by CAT Hyderabad Bench, which were affirmed up to the Apex Court to the Page 12 of 13 O.A. No.330/997 of 2024 applicants of this Original Application, within a period of 12 weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. Resultantly, instant OA stands allowed
18. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
19. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nadan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) PM/ PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Page 13 of 13