Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Om Prakash Srivastava vs Post Up Circle on 24 April, 2026
Open Court
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Allahabad this the 24th day of April, 2026
Original Application No.1263 of 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Om Prakash Srivastava aged about 65 years Son of late Bhagwati
Prasad Lal R/o Village and post Baruin Via Zamania Rs, District
Ghazipur.
....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Babu Nandan Singh
VERSUS
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, Ghazipur Division, Ghazipur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri V.P. Tripathi
ORDER
Delivered By Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative) Heard Shri Babu Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri V.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following reliefs:
"(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and direct the respondents to count his service rendered as Reserve Trained Pool for purpose of granting the financial Page 1 of 9 Neelam Kumari Singh up gradation under time bound one promotion scheme and the modified assured career progression scheme the past service since initial appointment w.e.f. 8.2.83 for purpose of pension and all other consequential benefits including seniority and pay fixation (DCRG, Leave in casement, 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 the higher scale.
(iii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents 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'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vi) To award cost of the petition in favor of the applicant."
3. The brief facts as stated in the Original Application are that the applicant was selected for the post of Reserve Trained Pool Postal Assistant. The appointment of the applicant was made on provisional basis and as such, the applicant completed all the required conditions as per notification and after verification, he joined as Postal Assistant vide order dated 24.11.1983. The applicant also completed training. Subsequently, the applicant was regularized as Postal Assistant and given regular pay scale w.e.f. 30.06.1987. However, his services as RTP before regularization, have not been counted by the respondents for any service benefits including career progression. 3.1 The applicant superannuated from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2017 from Ghazipur Division from the post of Sub Post Master, Zamania and other posts, but his initial service as RTP prior to regularization has not been counted for service benefits. Some similarly situated persons approached various Benches of this Tribunal from time to time and the Tribunal has allowed the claim Page 2 of 9 Neelam Kumari Singh of similarly situated persons in those Original Applications. As per the applicant he made a representation on 03.04.2024 before the respondents for counting his past service period under RTP, but no action was taken. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.
4. On the other hand, counter reply was filed on 02.07.2025, wherein it has been stated that the applicant was initially appointed as temporary short time staff on hourly basis in department under Reserve Trained Pool Scheme, which was evolved on 30.10.1980 and later discontinued in 1986. He was allotted to Hazaribagh Division and subsequently, regularized on 30.06.1987.
4.1 The applicant was employed under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) scheme, which provided for employment on an hourly basis with a maximum of eight hours of work per day. The RTP candidates were aware that their appointment was temporary and did not guarantee regular employment, but they could be absorbed into regular vacancies in the future. The applicant's appointment letter dated 05.07.1983 clearly states that the candidate would be paid hourly wages till absorption in regular vacancy in due course.
4.2 On 30.06.1987, the applicant was regularized on temporary basis, with the condition that he will pass confirmation exam within three years. The RTP scheme did not envisage any right for counting of RTP service prior to regular appointment for any purpose. The applicant retired from service on 31.08.2017, from the post of SPM Zamania and later filed the instant Original Application for regularization of service and revision of retirement and pension benefits. RTP candidates were much aware of the fact that they were not regular appointees and that they would be paid wages on hourly basis only.
Page 3 of 9 Neelam Kumari Singh 4.3 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) (case of Shri K.N. Sivadas & ors) had clearly held vide 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 cadre.
4.5 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 cases vide its order dated 24.01.2023. The Original Application is also barred by law of limitation. Hence, Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 26.01.2026, wherein he has reiterated the same averments as made in Original Application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the services rendered by the applicant as Reserved Trained Pool prior to regularization ought to have been counted for service benefits including for grant of MACP in view of order passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Tribunal, which was affirmed up to the Apex Court. 6.1 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 Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India in O.A. No.3466/2019, wherein the benefits of service 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.6973/2024 & another analogous case vide order dated 27.05.2024. The order of Delhi High Court was also affirmed by the Page 4 of 9 Neelam Kumari Singh Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.29726/2024 vide its judgment dated 10.12.2024.
6.2 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.
6.3 Learned counsel for the applicant placed heavy reliance on the following orders/judgments:-
i. K. Manohara & Ors. Vs. Union of India, passed by CAT Hyderabad vide its order dated 15.04.2015, which was affirmed by the High Court of Telangana 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 17.03.2017 in OP Nos.89, 95, 101, 102, 112, 114, 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 set aside by the High Court of Chhattisgarh in W.P. No.1912/2021 vide its order dated 03.10.2024 & order dated 04.04.2025 in REVP No.72/2025 and also affirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 29.08.2025 in SLP (civil) No.35662/2025.
6.4 Learned counsel for the applicant 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.
7. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
8. From perusal of the records, it appears that the issue involved in this Original Application is now no more res integra as the Page 5 of 9 Neelam Kumari Singh similar issue fell for consideration before CAT Principal Bench in case of Raksh Pal's case (supra) in which vide its order 20.09.2023 it has been clearly held 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 Honourable 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 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 Page 6 of 9 Neelam Kumari Singh benefits flowing therefrom including MACP and pension, which shall be fixed accordingly, wherever applicable. There shall be no order as to costs."
9. The order passed in case of Raksh Pal (supra) has already been affirmed by the Delhi High Court vide its order dated 27.05.2024 in W.P.(C) No.6973/2024. Relevant para 3,4 & 5 are quoted as under:-
"3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and contends that once the petitioners before the Telangana High Court in W.P.(C)17400/2016, have been granted the due benefits of their service as Reserve Trained Pool for purposes of MACP, the respondents cannot be discriminated against. Не, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.
4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, we find no reason to once again examine the issue. In the light of the admitted position that the respondents are similarly situated as the petitioners before the Telangana High Court who have all been granted the benefits of their service as Reserve Trained Pool, there is no justification for denying the benefits of this service to the respondents for purposes of grant of MACP. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the impugned order.
5. The writ petition being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. The aforesaid judgment of Delhi High Court is affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) Diary No.29726/2024 vide its judgment dated 18.12.2024.
11. Similarly in OA No 823 of 2020 in the case of Dheeraj Pal and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors, the Principal Bench vide its order dated 29.08.2024 allowed the OA with following directions:-
"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 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 Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in present OA.Page 7 of 9
Neelam Kumari Singh
(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."
12. The order in OA No.823 of 2020 was affirmed by the Delhi High Court in W.P. (c) No.7301/2025 vide order dated 27.05.2025. The paragraphs 10 and 11 of the same are quoted as under:-
"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.
13. The aforesaid order of Delhi High Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (C) No.51581 of 2025 on 14.11.2025.
14. In view of various judicial pronouncements on the same issue, the applicant is 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, Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India in O.A. No.3466/2019 etc, which have been affirmed at the level of 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. Page 8 of 9 Neelam Kumari Singh
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 in O.A. No.3466/2019 (Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India), which were affirmed up to the Apex Court to the applicant 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. No order as to costs.
18. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off. (Anjani Nadan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) /neelam/ Page 9 of 9 Neelam Kumari Singh