RTP case dismissed at Madras High Court on 4.11.2024 - Becomes a bottle neck to the Principal CAT case

The gist of the letter is furnished below. The Audit compares the Jabalpur and Nagpur judgments and suggesting seeking fresh directions from the court instead of immediately implementing the orders. Payment is yet to be made.

Revision of pension and settlement of benefits for RTP applicants in OA no. 779 & 780 of 2013.

·        Context: Pending contempt cases related to non-compliance with High Court orders.

·        Action Required:

·        Consider RTP period as qualifying service for pension benefits.

·        Compliance with High Court orders dated 27-02-2023.

·        The contempt case numbers mentioned in the document are CC no. 2270/2022 and CC no. 45/2024.

·        Review and verify correctness of pension-related documents as per observations from Senior AO(PA), PAO, Hyderabad.

·        The document mentions the court cases WP no. 17400 & 17425 and OA no. 779 & 780 of 2013 from the CAT, Hyderabad Bench.

·        The RTP period (from selection date to regular absorption) must be considered as qualifying service for the calculation of consequential pension and pensionary benefits for the RTP applicants.

·        The common order issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana State is dated 27-02-2023.

• The Hon'ble High Court of Telangana ordered compliance with directives from the CAT, Jabalpur (1986) and upheld by the Supreme Court (1988).
• The CAT, Hyderabad's orders (2015) and the High Court's interim orders (2017) have been implemented for applicants in OA no. 779 & 780/2013.
• The relief granted includes regularization and consequential benefits for RTP applicants.
• The committee's guidelines must be followed, as they are binding, contrary to the advisory nature of the DSGI's opinion.
• Pension benefits for the applicants have been authorized in compliance with the court orders.

 

1. The CAT, Bombay at Nagpur reviewed and allowed nine OAs, directing respondents to extend the same relief as granted in TA no. 82/1986, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
2. The judgement of CAT, Jabalpur in TA no. 82 of 1986 is considered "sacrosanct" for implementing RTP cases, and the relief granted must include seniority and pay fixation.
3. The High Court of Telangana and the CAT, Hyderabad have reiterated the importance of the Jabalpur Bench's order, emphasizing the need for regularization and consequential benefits for the applicants.

·        There are objections regarding the drawal of arrears. Some divisions failed to adhere to the committee's guidelines for implementing wage differences and instead referred to the committee's report as merely "recommendatory," opting to follow the DSGI's advisory opinion.

·        This deviation from the approved committee's report has raised concerns about the proper implementation of wage payments for the RTP period.

·        The divisions failed to adhere to the committee's guidelines by treating the committee's report as merely "recommendatory" rather than obligatory, which led them to follow the DSGI's advisory opinion instead. They issued speaking orders to implement the CAT orders without fully complying with the committee's approved directives. This resulted in inconsistencies in the application of wage payments and the recognition of service records for RTP applicants.

 

·        The audit approved the revision of wages as per the directives of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana State, which mandated the implementation of the CAT, Jabalpur order. The final directions include ensuring that the RTP employees are paid the same salary and emoluments as Postal Assistants from the date of their appointment, along with all consequential benefits such as seniority and pay fixation. Additionally, the units/divisions are instructed to comply with the court's directives and the approved guidelines for proper implementation.