Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Ashok Ramchandra Nawle And Ors vs Posts on 9 December, 2024
1 OA No. 2172/2020
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench: Mumbai
OA No.2172/2020
Reserved on: 14th November, 2024
Pronounced on: 09th December, 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Santosh Mehra, Member (A)
1) Ashok Ramchandra Nawle, Age-56 Yrs, Sorting
Assistant, R.M.S. F Division Nagpur, Occpn- Service, R/o-
94, Sudarshan Colony, New Subhedar Layout, Nagpur-
440024
2) Satyawan Tulshiram Dambhare- Age- 55 Yrs, Public
Relation Inspector of POs, Occpn- Service, R/o- G-69,
Vasant Vihar, Barde Nagar, Borgaon-Gorewada Road,
Nagpur-440013
3) Hivraj Raghunath Ukey, Age- 64 Yrs, Retired Sorting
Assistant, S.R.O. Gondia, Occpn-Pensioner, R/o- Nana
Chouk Kumbhare Nagar Gondia-441601.
4) Pandurang Patruji Bhoge, Age- 63 Yrs. Retired
Sorting Assistant RMS F Division Nagpur, Occpn-
Pensioner, R/o- Qtr. No. 10, Mhada Colony, 50, MIG,
Vidnyan Nagar, Manewada Nagpur-440034.
5) Ku. Madhuri Sharatchandra Dharashivkar, Sau. @
Manjiri Mukund Muley, Age-59, Occp.: Pensioner, R/o- 1,
Shrinatu Gruha Sankul, Damle Marg, Ramdas peth, Akola-
444005.
6) Mukund Keshav Muley, Age- 60 Yrs, Retired Sorting
Assistant, Akola R.M.S. Occpn- Pensioner, R/o-1, Shrinatu
Gruha Sankul, Damle Marg. Ramdas Peth, Akola-444005.
7) Ku.Shakuntala Narayan Dhapodkar @ Smt.
Shakuntala Deorao Nimje ,, Age-62 Yrs, Retired Sorting
Assistant H.R.O.Nagpur, Occpn- Pensioner, R/o-146,
2 OA No. 2172/2020
Kharbi Road, Near Kamal Convent, Shesha Nagpur-
440024.
8) Ku., Sandhya Prabhakarrao Chinchalkar @Mrs.
Sandhya Mukund Pendake, Age-61 Yrs., Retired Postal
Assistant S.B.C.O. Nagpur City H.P.O. Occpn- Pensioner,
R/o- C-1, Bajrang Complex, Vakilpeth, near Reshimbaugh,
Umred Road, Nagpur-440024.
9) Ku. Megha Madhukarrao Deshpande, @ Smt. Megha
Sanjiv Sathe, Age-60 Yrs, Retired Sorting Assistant H.R.O
Nagpur R.M.S, Occpn- Pensioner, R/o-74, Shivsut' Sainath
Nagar near Lokseva Nagar, Bhamthi, Nagpur-440022.
10) Ku.Vidhya Krishnarao Pande @ Sau. Sukhada Satish
Kothiwan, age-59 Yrs, Sub Postmaster Khamla P.O.
Nagpur-440025. Occpn- service. R/o-91, Surendra Nagar,
near Tatya tope Hall, Nagpur-440015.
11) Surendrakumar Laxman Koche, Age-64 Yrs, Retired
S.B.CO. Postal Assistant Kamthi, Occpn- Pensioner, R/o-
92, Radhakrishna Nagar, Near Roy Udhyog Building,
Zingabai Takli, P.O.Mankapur, Nagpur440030.
12) Ku. Aruna Rathakumar Tikait, @ Smt. Aruna
Anilkumar Kanhed, Age-57 Yrs. Sub Postmaster Wardha
Market PO, Occpn- Service, R/o- C/o Anilkumar R.Kanhed,
Bank of India Colony, Nagpur Road Nalwadi, Wardha-
442001.
13) Moreshwar Vyankatrao Likhar, Asstt Supdt.of R.M.S.
F Division Nagpur, Age-56 Yrs., Occpn- Service, R/o-F-01,
'Shri Ganesha 81, Swaroopnagar, Nagpur-440022
14) Ku. Vidyulata Marotrao Poharkar @ Smt. Vidyulata
Subhash Masurkar-Age56 Yrs, Postal Assistant S.B.C.O.
Kamthi, Occpn- Service, R/o Kapil Nagar Takiya Ward,
Bhandara-441804
15) Shri Hemraj Mulchand Patle, Retired Sorting
Assistant, Occpn- Pensioner, Age-62 Yrs, R/o- near Pangoli
River Road Gondia Khurd, Gondia-441601
3 OA No. 2172/2020
16) Ku.Shalini Dnyaneshwar Patil, Retired Sub Record
officer Wardha R.M.S. Occpn- Pensioner, R/o-Gorakshan
Ward No. 15, Hindi Nagar, Wardha-442003.
17) Krishna Rambhau Deshnukh, Age-58 Yrs., Postal
Assistant 5.B.C.O Amaravati Occpn- Service, R/o-
Jogadekar plot, Dabaki Road, Near Dnyaneshwar Mangal
Karyalaya, Old City, Akola-444002
18) Sanjay Shankar Hartalkar, Age 59 Yrs., Sub
Postmaster Barshitakali Distt. Akola Occpn- Service, R/o
Near Pundalik Baba Ashram Raut Wadi, Akola-444005
19) Pramod Jagannath Ramteke, Age 59 Yrs., Office
Assistant, H/R.O. R.M.S 'F' Division Nagpur, Occpn-
Service, R/o- 505, Rajat Tower, Near Jaswant Mall, Indora
Chouk Na Kgpur-440017.
20) Ku. Indira Dhanraj Waghmare @ Smt. Indira Ramesh
Sahare, Retired Sorting Assistant H.R.O R.M.S. 'F' Dn
Nagpur, Age- 63 Years, Occpn- Pensioner, R/o-91, Indira
Villa, Omnagar (Kirtidhar Society) Mankapur, Nagpur-
440030
21) Arvind Shamrao Mowade, Age 65 Yrs. Retired Sub
Postmaster Chhoti Gujari Yavatmal, Occpn-Pensioner, R/o-
100, Sidharth Society, Vaishali Nagar, Yavatmal- 445001.
22) Raybhan Jagannath Ramteke, Age-64 Yrs, Retired
Sub Postmaster, Wani, Distt. Yavatmal, Occpn- Pensioner,
R/o-Kamal Niwas, Ward No. 3, Near Z.P. High School, Mul
Road, Chichapalli- via Mul S.O.-441224 Distt. Chandrapur
-Applicants
(By Advocate Mr. A N Dighore)
Versus
1) The Union Of India, through it's Secretary,
Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Dak
Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 001.
4 OA No. 2172/2020
2) The Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle,
Mumbai- 400 001.
3) The Postmaster General, Nagpur Region, Nagpur-440
010. - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. P H Khobragade)
ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
By this application, the applicants are seeking the relief of appointment of the applicants as Regular Postal Assistants / Sorting Assistants from their respective dates the applicants have started working as Reserved Trained Pool staff and direction to the respondents for granting them the benefits like seniority, pay fixation, financial upgradations and pension fixations.
2. Facts leading to this application are that applicant nos. 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, 14, 17, 18 and 19 are working as Postal Assistants / Sorting Assistants in different units under administrative control and jurisdiction of the respondents. Applicant nos. 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 20, 21 & 22 have already retired on superannuation. 5 OA No. 2172/2020
3. The respondents had floated a scheme in the year 1980 called as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant. Pursuant to this scheme, all the applicants were appointed on various dates from 1982 to 1986. This scheme was abandoned in the year 1986. However, some of the applicants continued to work as RTP even after 1986.
4. The notification / advertisement was published in Daily Tarun Bharat in the year 1983 (Annexure A-23) for the appointment of Postal Assistants & Sorting Assistants for Postal Divisions and RMS Divisions. All the applicants were selected for the post of Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants. Thus, their appointment was after following the due process.
5. The services of the applicants were used as RTP from 1982 onwards till they were selected as Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants. The applicants had the requisite qualification for being appointed as RTP. The respondents did not count the period of service rendered by the applicants as RTP after their appointment as Postal 6 OA No. 2172/2020 Assistant and Sorting Assistants, as a result of which all the applicants have been deprived of the benefit of seniority, promotions, pay and pension.
6. The respondents did not give regular appointments from the dates the applicants started working as RTP despite guidelines and instructions dated 07th February, 2018 (Annexure- A-24). The applicants made representations to the respondents on the dates mentioned in para 4.1 of the O.A. The respondents did not decide those representations. They contend that because of grant of seniority / pay fixations from the dates from which the applicants started working as RTP, no existing employees are going to be affected because this seniority will be the notional seniority for the financial upgradations. Even if the applicants are not regularized from these dates, the applicants can be considered for financial upgradations as T.B.O.P/B.C.R due after 16 years or 26 years of service. They contend that some employees who had worked as RTP had filed OA before Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in the matter of All India Postal Employees Union versus Union of India & Ors. by T.A. No. 82/1986 which was 7 OA No. 2172/2020 decided on 16th December, 1986. The applicants have, therefore, prayed for following reliefs:-
"8.i) To appoint the applicants as Regular Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant from their respective dates the applicants have started working as Reserve Trained Pool staff and direct the respondents for granting them the benefits like seniority, pay fixation, financial upgradations and pension fixations,
ii) Grant any other reliefs as found just by this Hon'ble Tribunal, in the interest of justice."
7. Respondents filed their reply. They contend that the OA is hopelessly barred by limitation. They contend that the services rendered under RTP scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant cannot be counted for promotion, seniority and grant of MACP. They admit that the applicants were selected for the post of Postal Assistant/ Sorting Assistant and their services were used as RTP PA/SA under the scheme of 1980, according to this scheme, they were required to work as PA/SA for a period of 6 hours daily in two spells in 24 hours, each spell would not be more than 3 hours. Therefore, the say of the applicants that they have been deprived of the benefits like seniority, promotions, pay and pension is unacceptable as 8 OA No. 2172/2020 regular PA/SA is expected to work for 8 hours daily. They contend that as per Annexure A-24, the Directorate vide its letter dated 07th February, 2018 clarified that RTP scheme was a mode of filling up direct recruitment vacancies of PA/SAs. Training period of such RTP official, undertaken prior to 1986 may be counted for the purpose of TBOP/BCR scheme irrespective of their date of entry in service before or after 1986. In case of the officials who were appointed after gap, the intervening period will not be counted.
8. They contend that the RTP was set up in October, 1980 by which a scheme was framed for constitution of a standing pool of trained reserved candidates for the Post and RMS offices. The scheme was introduced by the circular dated 30th October, 1980. In terms of this circular, in many operative offices, the smooth flow of work was hampered by shortage of staff due to absenteeism and other cause. Meeting this shortage with overtime arrangements was not always a satisfactory solution. For this purpose, a standing pool of trained reserve candidates (RTP) was formed. The candidates selected under the 9 OA No. 2172/2020 scheme were called up against drop-outs from the main list, they were imparted training only after they were brought to the main list. Under the new scheme, after the main list is drawn up, a specific additional reserve list of candidates equal in number to 50% of the number of candidates in the main list will be drawn up. The candidates in the reserve list will also be imparted training like the candidates in the main list. The candidates in the reserve list will constitute a standing pool of trained reserve. They will be absorbed in regular vacancies in their turn after the candidates in the main list are absorbed. Till then they will be used as short duty staff against vacancies due to absenteeism or any other reason. Their absorption would be in the order of their merit. They were required to work maximum six hours a day and were paid on hourly rates of wages. While appointing them, they were made aware of the following conditions:-
i. Their services will be required for the period of 6 (six) hours daily in two spells in 24 hours, each spell will not be more than three hours 10 OA No. 2172/2020 ii. They will be paid wages at Rs. 2.75 (Rs. Two and Paise Seventy Five Only) per hour.
iii. They will be given full training for a period of 15 days to work as short duty Sorting Assistant During which they will be paid training allowances as admissible according to rules of P&T Department iv. They will have to work as short duty Sorting Assistant in this Division till their absorption comes.
v. They will have to work as Short Duty Sorting Assistant wherever and whenever called upon refusal or failure to respond to call for short duty, particularly at the time of strike, agitation, go-slow etc. will entail the deletion of the candidates name from the Reserve Trained Pool.
9. Respondents contend that after lapse of 38 years from the date of engagement as RTP and subsequently absorbed as Sorting Assistant w.e.f. 14th August, 1989, the applicants have filed present OA. Clarifications have been issued by the Directorate dated 12th April, 2012 and 07th February, 2018 that the services rendered under RTP scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistant / Sorting Assistant cannot be counted 11 OA No. 2172/2020 for promotion, seniority and grant of MACP. For all these reasons, they prayed for dismissal of this application.
10. The applicants have not filed rejoinder.
11. The applicants have also filed application for condonation of delay under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They contend that the applicants have submitted representations for counting their past service for seniority, pay fixation and financial upgradation. It is a continuous cause of action and, therefore, the OA is within limitation.
12. The respondents filed reply to application for condonation of delay. They have denied all the allegations and contend that the delay cannot be condoned. They contend that the applicants have not made out any sufficient cause for condonation of delay. They further contend that the aspect of the delay has been considered by this Tribunal in the matter of Sanjay Sumantrao Sathe vs Union of India & ors. in OA Nos. 719 to 727 of 1996 dated 31st August, 2010.
12 OA No. 2172/2020
13. We have heard learned counsels for the applicants and respondents.
14. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were appointed as RTP pursuant to the scheme of 1980 and they worked as RTP from 1982 onwards till 1986 i.e. the year in which the scheme was abandoned. Learned counsel for the applicants contended that in terms of the communication dated 07th January/February, 2018, the government took decision to count the period of induction training of Postal Assistants/ Sorting Assistants and RTPs. He submits that pursuant to this scheme, representations were made and they have not been decided yet. He further submitted that in terms of the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal, the applicant in that O.A. were granted the benefits. He submitted that the applicants were paid wages at the rate of 2.75 per hour which was highly disproportionate to the wages paid to the regular Postal Assistants. The duties rendered by the RTPs and the Regular Postal Assistants were the same. Therefore, they are entitled to the same wages as that of those workers. He 13 OA No. 2172/2020 further submitted that relying on Jabalpur Bench, Bombay Bench has also granted the benefits to the RTPs.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the OA is barred by limitation. They are seeking counting of service from 1982 to 1986 in the year 2020. Thus, there is delay of 34 years. He further submitted that the applicants have not prayed for relief of counting of past service. In the OA which the learned counsel for the applicants has referred, relief of counting of past service was sought. In view of the above, the applicants are not entitled to the reliefs they have claimed.
16. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the applicants and respondents.
17. We shall first deal with the aspect of condonation of delay.
18. Admittedly, all the applicants were appointed as RTPs during the period from 1982 to 1986. They were subsequently regularized. Thereafter, they made 14 OA No. 2172/2020 representations for counting of their past service rendered as RTP. The said representations are yet not decided. In the mean while i.e. on 07th January/February, 2018, the respondents took a decision in regard to Postal Assistants / Sorting Assistants and RTPs regarding the past service. The said letter reads thus:-
" Dated the 7th January/February, 2018
To,
All Chief Postmaster(s) General,
Subject: Counting of induction training period for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP/BCR scheme. Madam/Sir, I am directed to refer to Directorate's letter of even number dated 5.05.2016 wherein it was conveyed to count the period of induction training of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistants (Direct Recruits) working in operative offices, undergone prior to 1986, for the purpose of qualifying service under TBOP/BCR scheme. Various issues in the matter were under examination in the Directorate and clarified as under:
S.L. Classification sought by the Comments of the Circle Directorate
i) ---- ----
ii) ---- ---- iii) ---- ---- iv) ---- ---- v) ---- ---- vi) Whether to count induction RTP Scheme was
training period of Reserved introduced in the year Trained Pool official, 1980 as per which a undergone prior to 1986 (i.e. panel of such persons 1982-83) and their date of was retained who entry in service could not be covered 1988/89/1990. under the number of vacancies declared for 15 OA No. 2172/2020 regular appointment as PS/PA. The said RTP personnel were given priority for absorption against vacancies, which occurred subsequently. The RTP Scheme was abolished w.e.f.
04.03.1986.
RTP scheme was a mode of filling up DR vacancies of PA/Sas.
Training period of
such RTP official,
undertaken prior to
1986 may be counted
for the purpose of
TBOP/BCR scheme
irrespective of their
date of entry in service
before or after 1986.
In case of the officials
who were appointed
after gap, the
intervening period i.e.
(between date of
completion of training
& date of regular
appointment in the
Cadre) will not be
counted.
19. Thus, the respondents took a decision in respect of RTP that training period of such RTP officials undertaken prior to 1986 may be counted for the purpose of TBOP/BCR scheme irrespective of their date of entry in service before or after 1986. So the applicants got the 16 OA No. 2172/2020 cause of action in the month of January/February, 2018. Some of the applicants made representations in the year 2020. The respondents did not take any decision on the representations and after waiting for reasonable period, the applicants have filed this OA. The OA is, therefore, within limitation. In addition to that in the matter of Sanjay Sumantrao Sathe (supra), it has been held that the claim of seniority as well as claim of regularization is a continuous cause of action. It starts from the date of entitlement and continues till it is provided or denied. Therefore, in this OA, it was held that the OA was not barred by limitation.
20. In the case at hand also, the applicants are claiming seniority and appointment as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants from the date they were appointed as RTPs. In this view of the matter, we do not find that the OA is barred by limitation.
21. The issue as regards seniority was considered by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal. Relying on the judgment of the Jabalpur Bench, Bombay Bench of this Tribunal has 17 OA No. 2172/2020 held in the matter of Sanjay Sumantrao Sathe (supra) as under:-
"5. It is noted that the nine applicants before us in the O.As. were considered and appointed under the Scheme of 1980, promulgated by the respondents and known as Reserved Trainee Pool Scheme (hereinafter referred to as 'RTP Scheme'), on different dates. It appears that the said Scheme was abandoned in the year 1986 but before that some such persons appointed under the RTP Scheme approached the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal, which allowed their case by an order dated 16.12.1986 in T.A. No. 82/1986. Para 10 to 12 of the said order constitute the operative portion of the said judgment and the net result of the analysis is given by the Learned Co-ordinate Jabalpur Bench in para 13 thereof. The said paragraphs are relevant for the present purpose and are hereby reproduced.
"10. Under the circumstances to end the unreasonable and unjust classification that has been introduced as the result of dual policy of the Government as reflected in the issue of the circular (Annexure R1) and the stopping of further recruitment and absorption to the cadre of posts of Postal Assistants, as affirmed in para 8 of the Respondent's return dated 24.6.1985, we direct that:-
(a) Government shall review their policy to stop recruitment/absorption of persons against regular Postal Assistants.
(b) No person shall be inducted from other Departments like Railway Mail Service and Telecommunication Department to man posts of Postal Assistants until the petitioners are absorbed against regular posts.
(c) No fresh persons be taken and recruited against the R.T.P. (Reserved Trained Pool). Until the Government reviews their policy as under (a) above the operation of the circular dated 31.10.1980 (Annexure R1) in regard to recruitment of fresh persons to RTP other than the petitioner is struck down in exercise of this Tribunal's writ jurisdiction.
(d) The absorption of the petitioners against regular posts will be so phased on the basis of para 2 of circular of 30.10.1980, as if no restriction had been imposed on their regular recruitment/absorption earlier and shall be completed within a reasonable period from the date of this order, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts, and 18 OA No. 2172/2020 subject to screening of the unfit by a especially constituted Screening Committee to examine their record and performance. The Screening Committee shall also keep in view their seniority in the R.T.P.
11. As regards the question of equal pay for equal work claimed by the Petitioners, we have also to keep in mind Article 39 relating to Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution while reading Article 14 and 16 in the present case.
This provision together with other provisions of the Constitution contain one main objective, namely - the building of a Welfare State and egalitarian, social order as pointed out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshavand Vs. State of Kerala (1973 (4) SCC
225). If the State itself violates the directive principles and introduce inequality in the matter of equal pay for equal work it would be most unfortunate and cannot be justified. It is a peculiar attitude to take on the part of the respondents to say that they would pay only hourly wages to RTP employees and not the same wages as other similarly employed Postal Assistants when they are performing the same work as held by us in paras 6 and 7 of this order. It cannot be justified also in the light of the following observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court, cited in the case of Surendra Singh Vs. The Engineers in Chief, CPWD, ATR 1986 SC 76.
"The arguments lies in the mouth of Central Government, for it is all too similar argument with the exploiting class and a welfare state committed to a Socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to strive or take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. This fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class-IV employees cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there should be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for equal work for equal value."
In the matter of dearness and other allowance and the need for maintaining equality between wages of casual workers and salary, etc. of regularly appointed Telephone Operators, the order of Supreme Court dated 28.7.1985 in the case of All India Telegraph Engineering Employees Union Vs. Union of India & Another has also been cited by the Petitioners besides some other rulings.
19 OA No. 2172/2020
12. Under the circumstances, for reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, we find the provisions of the circular dated 30.10.1980 (Annexure R1) in so far they relate to payment of hourly rates of wages to employees in the RTP discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and are struck down. We direct respondents that the RTP employees performing the same duties as Postal Assistants, shall be paid the same salary and emoluments for mensem as are being received by Postal Assistants w.e.f. the date of their appointments. As regards other conditions of service, facilities demanded by the Petitioner, this is subject to their regular absorption as directed in para 10.
6. It is a matter of record that the S.L.P. No. 11313 of 1987 preferred by the respondents against the said judgement of this Tribunal was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court by order dated 11.05.1956. Consequently, the respondents complied with the above said order of the Tribunal and absorbed the applicants therein as well as other similarly situated persons like the applicants, in the regular cadre.
7. The applicants, however, approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, by filing these nine O.As in question in the year 1996, seeking a direction to the respondents to extend them all the benefits, including the benefit of seniority and salary from the date of their initial appointment under the RTP Scheme. These relief, in toto, was granted by the Tribunal by fully relying upon the judgment of Ld.Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Jabalpur in T.A. No. 82/1986. The operative portion of the said order is to be seen in para 11 of the order of this Tribunal in its earlier order dated 16.06.2000 and the said paragraph is reproduced herein below for the sake of convenience:
"11. For the above, we do not hesitate to adopt the order passed by Jabalpur Bench in T.A. No. 82/1986 and direct the respondents to treat the applicants as a regular Postal Assistants from the date of their appoints as R.T.P. along with all consequential service benefits including the seniority and pay fixation but they shall be allowed monetary benefits only from the date of filing the O.A. The O.As are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs."
8. On a careful reading of the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 16.06.2000, including the operative portion reproduced herein above, it is noted that the relief granted to the present nine applicants is not in pari materia with the relief granted by the Ld. Jabalpur Bench in T.A. No. 82/86. In respectful agreement with the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court, we also note 20 OA No. 2172/2020 that there appears no other independent reasoning in granting the relief of regularisation, seniority, salary, etc., that too retrospectively from the date of initial appointment of the applicants which was only under the RTP Scheme. We also pertinently note that the Jabalpur Bench has only directed that the RTP employees performing the same duties as Postal Assistants shall be paid the same salary and emoluments per mensem as are being received by the regularly appointed Postal Assistants with effect from the date of their appointment. This direction appears in para 12 of the order dated 16.12.1986 of Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in TA 82/86 and as regards other service conditions regarding regular absorption of the employees in question, appropriate directions are to be seen in paragraph 10 thereof, which has been reproduced herein above.
9. Thus, there appears to be a minor conflict in the order passed by the Learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Jabalpur in TA 82/1986 and the order passed by this Tribunal in the nine cases in hand on 16.06.2000. Jabalpur Bench has granted same salary and emoluments to be paid to the Postal Assistants appointed under RTP Scheme at par with salary and emoluments being received by Postal Assistants from the date of their appointment. Whereas, the Bombay Bench has directed the respondents to treat the 9 applicants in the present case in hand as regular Postal Assistants from the date of their appointment under RTP Scheme with all consequential benefits, including seniority and pay fixation. To this extent, there is a contradiction in the order of the Bombay Bench.
10. The absorption of the applicants as Postal Assistants, which took place long back, is not disputed by the Respondents. Evidently, all the applicants have also been granted all the consequential benefits from the date of absorption. Therefore, keeping in view the admitted position that the applicants in the O.As in hand are similarly situated as the applicants were in T.A. 82/1986 and on a total reconsideration of the issues involved in the present nine cases and after minutely perusing the directions and observations of the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 11.06.2010, we allow this nine O.As. by directing the respondents to extend to the present nine applicants same reliefs as granted to the applicants in TA 82/1986 decided by the Jabalpur Bench on 16.12.1986 and as upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 11.05.1988 by dismissing the SLP No. 11313 of 1987 preferred by the Union of India against the order of Jabalpur Bench in question."
21 OA No. 2172/2020
22. In the case of Sanjay Sumantrao Sathe (supra), it is clear that this Bench of the Tribunal relying on the decision of Jabalpur Bench has held that the provision of the circular dated 30th October, 1980 in so far as they relate to payment of hourly rates of wages to employees in RTP is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and were struck down.
23. In terms of the Jabalpur Bench decision, facilities demanded by the RTP along with all consequential service benefits including the seniority and pay fixation was granted but they were allowed monetary benefits only from the date of filing of the OA. Subsequently, vide communication dated 07th January / February, 2018 (supra), the respondents have also accepted that their past services should be counted.
24. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to follow the decision of Jabalpur Bench as followed by Mumbai Bench in the matter of Sanjay Sumantrao Sathe (supra). We, therefore, allow the OA and grant all consequential service benefits to the applicants including 22 OA No. 2172/2020 the seniority and pay fixation. However, the monetary benefits shall be restricted to a period of three years preceding the date of filing of application.
25. In view of this, OA is allowed with no orders as to costs. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
(Santosh Mehra) (Justice M.G.Sewlikar) Member (A) Member (J) 'nk'