Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Santram vs Department Of Posts on 8 April, 2026
(Open Court)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
****
This is the 08th Day of April, 2026
Original Application No.428/2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
1. Santram age about 63 years, S/o Yadunandan Retd SPM Khalilabad
Bus Stand Rio Village Goryabhar Post Office Sikari District-Sant Kabir
Nagar.
2. Jeetan Prasad age about 64 years S/o Naipal Retd LSG PA Khalilahad
MDG Rio Village and post Semar Dadi, District-Sant Kabir Nagar
3. Nand Kishor age about 64 years, S/o Medhu Lal Retd SPM Village and
Post Mukhalishpur Via Ganpatganj, District-Sant Kabir Nagar
4. Tajammul age about 65 years, So Salamat Hussain Retd SPM Rio Home
no, 340 Saryu Nahar Colony (west) Khalilabad District-Sant Kabir
Nagar.
5. Ram Murat age about 61 years, S/o Bhawani Bheekh Retd SPM Village
Badewan Budhhapuram Madwana Post officer Gandhi Nagara Basti
District-Basti.
6. Madhav Tripathi S/o Beni Madhav Tripathi Retd SPM Village and post
chukhada via Bhanwapur District Sidhhart Nagar.
7. Om Prakash Singh age about 61 years S/o Munna Singh Retd LSG PA
Khalilabad Rio Babhniyavn Buzurg Post Lakhanhut ViaNagar Bazar
District-Basti.
8. Sayed Duryaft Hussain Rizvi age about 62 Years S/o unknown Retd
SPM Rio Village and post Hallaur District Sidhhart Nagar.
...........Applicants
By Adv: Shri R.S. Chaudhary
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Communication
Department of post Government of India Dakbawan New Delhi
2. Director General of Posts, Department of posts, Dak Bhawan, Sattsad
Marg. New Delhi. 110001.
3. Chief Postmaster General, U.P. Circle Lucknow 226001.
SUSHIL
KUMAR
SRIVASTA
VA
2
4. Post Master General Gorakhpur Circle Gorakhpur
5. Superintendent of post offices, Basti Division, Basti.
............. Respondents
By Adv.: Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) Heard Shri R.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. It is apparent from the order-sheet that sufficient opportunities i.e. on 30.07.2025, 26.09.2025, 18.12.2025, 27.01.2026 and 24.02.2026 were granted to the respondents for filing counter affidavit. However, despite availing such opportunities, the respondents have failed to filed any counter affidavit.
3. In the absence of any response from the respondents, this Tribunal is left with no option but to proceed to decide the present Original Application at the admission stage itself, on the basis of pleadings and documents available on record.
4. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following reliefs:-
i. To issue order/direction/ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants from the initial date of joining by counting the services rendered as R PA towards qualifying service for the purposes of all consequential benefits and also for purposes of granting financial up- gradation under tune bound promotion scheme and modified assured career progression scheme by revising the retrial benefits of the applicants as well as pension along with interest 10% per annum from the date of its due till the date of actual payment except applicants.
ii. To issue order/direction/ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the applicants contained in Annexure No.03 in SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTA VA 3 accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time bound manner to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal."
5. The case of the applicants, in brief, is that they were initially engaged as RTP Postal Assistants and had rendered continuous service for about five years without any break or adverse entry. Thereafter, their services were regularized in the year 1988 and they were absorbed in the regular establishment. The applicants continued in service, earned promotions and ultimately retired from the post of Sub Post Master on attaining the age of superannuation. Their grievance is that the period rendered prior to regularization has not been counted towards qualifying service for pensionary and other retiral benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants had worked continuously under the RTP scheme and their subsequent regularization was only a formal recognition of the services already rendered by them. It is further submitted that the RTP scheme itself envisaged eventual absorption against regular vacancies and, therefore, denial of benefit of past service is arbitrary. It is also contended that similarly situated employees have already been granted relief by various Benches of the Tribunal as well as by Hon'ble High Courts, and despite representations submitted by the applicants, no decision has been taken by the respondents till date.
7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants and have perused the material available on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the applicants were initially engaged under the RTP scheme, subsequently regularized and continued in service till retirement. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the service rendered prior to regularization is liable to be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTA VA 4
9. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. In K. Manohara & Ors. Vs. Union of India (CAT Hyderabad Bench, OA No. 779- 780/2013) and Rakesh Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India (CAT Principal Bench, OA No. 3466/2019), the Tribunal, while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 (affirming earlier decisions including that upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court), has categorically held that similarly situated employees are entitled to extension of such benefits and the respondents are under obligation to extend the same even suo motu. The relevant observations have already been extracted in the record. For ready reference the order passed by the CAT Principal Bench, in OA No.3466/2019 is reproduced 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 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 upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.No. 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 SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTA VA 5 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."
Further, in Aditya Prasad & Ors. Vs. Union of India (CAT Allahabad Bench, OA No. 330/314/2025), the aforesaid view has been followed and similar relief has been granted.
10. In the present case, the applicants have already retired and their claim relates to pensionary benefits, which is a recurring cause of action. The respondents, despite adequate opportunity, have neither controverted the factual assertions nor placed any material to distinguish the present case from the settled legal position.
11. In view of the above and in absence of any distinguishing feature, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be disposed of in terms of the settled law.
12. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for counting of their RTP service rendered prior to regularization towards qualifying service for pensionary and other retiral benefits, strictly in the light of the judgments referred to hereinabove and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTA VA 6 date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the applicants are found entitled, consequential benefits shall be released within a further period of two months thereafter.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending Misc. Applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTA VA