Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Respondents filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant both on delay/laches, limitation so also on merit.

3. As far as merit of the matter is concerned, based on the averments made in the counter, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that Dept. of Posts introduced RTP Scheme in 1980 for the candidates recruited as Postal Assistant to work in post offices on hourly remuneration basis when required to meet the short time and current needs and they were being given priority for absorption against the subsequent vacancies to be occurred. In 1983, they were given option to serve in Army Postal Service (APS) and the persons, so opted, were appointed as PA on ad hoc basis and deputed to APS and they were eligible to get the benefit of regular appointment in civil posts from the date their immediate junior was appointed on regular basis in civil post. The said RTP Scheme was abolished w.e.f. 04.03.1986. The applicants, namely S/Sh Shreenibasa Mishra, Alaya Kumar Pal, Srikanta Chandra Sundar Ray, Premarendu Pal, were selected and joined in practical training in RTP on 01.12.1982, 01.12.1982, 01.12.1982 and 08.12.1982 4 OA 260/00535 of 2019 being fully aware of the terms and conditions of RTP Scheme and were appointed as PA on 12.12.1986, 12.12.1986, 11.12.1986 and 11.12.1986 respectively.

4. It is submitted that some of the similarly situated employees approached before this Bench seeking regularization of their services rendered under RTP Scheme were already dismissed based on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 01.08.1997 in CA No. 80/123 of 1996 dated 01.07.1997 (UOI & Ors Vs. K.N.Sivados & Ors). Based on the aforesaid decision, the Postal Directorate issued letter No. 44- 1/2011-SBP.II dated 12.04.2012 specifically providing therein that the service rendered under RTP Scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as PA/SA cannot be counted for promotion, seniority or grant of MACP. Therefore, the applicants having accepted the terms and conditions were kept under RTP, the services rendered by them prior to their regularization cannot be counted for any purpose under law.

5. Insofar as limitation is concerned, it has been submitted that the applicants were kept under RTP during the year 1982 to 1985. For the first time, they raised their voice for counting the period under RTP after 5 OA 260/00535 of 2019 33 years, i.e. in 2018, thus, they became fence sitter and are not entitled to the benefit now claimed in this OA after such long lapse of time only because similar benefit was granted to others by virtue of the orders of the Courts. In this regard, the respondents have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 24.07.2018 in W.P(C) No. 7015 and others of 2017 wherein the order of this Tribunal dated 18.08.2016 in OA Nos. 318 of 2017 and others passed ignoring the point of limitation was annulled.

19. Equally, it is well settled principle of law that a settled thing should not be unsettled after a long lapse of time. Further, it is well settled law that the persons, who shall be affected in case relief is granted to an applicant must be arraigned as party to the litigation. In the present case, the applicants were appointed as PA during the year 1986. They woke from the slumber by making representation in 2018, i.e. after a lapse of more than three decades, praying inter alia for their regularization of their services from the date of their initial enrollment as RTP for granting the financial upgradation under TBOP and MACP on the analogy that the RTP employee, who were not regularized approached the various Tribunals wherein orders were passed to regularize them retrospectively. But, no explanation is forthcoming for not being vigilant if at all they had acquired an indefeasible right to be regularized from the date when they were inducted as RTP starting from the day they were appointed as PA in 1986. Therefore, allowing the benefit by condoning the delay would tantamount to unsettling a settled matter after about three decades. Further, direction of retrospective regularization at this 15 OA 260/00535 of 2019 stage would have much more adverse repercussion/affect and it may so lead to upsetting the promotional effects etc. affecting the rights of the others, who are not before this Tribunal. Hence, taking into consideration the entire aspect of the matter, this Tribunal is well convinced that this is a matter where no leniency can be shown to the applicants. On examination, we find that the facts and issues of the earlier OA 534/2019 are same and similar to the present case and, therefore, we see no justification to defer from the view already taken by the applicant in the aforesaid case.