Department
directs the circles to file additional affidavits in RTP case for rejection of
the claim
- This letter is having the Circulation
of important judgments favouring the Department and against to the demand
of Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) personnel.
- Previous judgments support the
Department's stance on RTP service counting.
- Circles are urged to defend cases based
on RTP policy and relevant judgments.
- Additional affidavits may be filed in
pending cases.
- RTP scheme established a reserve pool for
temporary staffing, with no rights to count service before regular
appointment.
- The Hon'ble Apex Court ruled that any
service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment
cannot be counted for any purpose, as it cannot be considered service in
an eligible cadre.
- This ruling was established in the
judgment dated 01.08.1997 in Civil Appeal No. 5268/97. The court
emphasized that the RTP Scheme did not provide for automatic absorption or
counting of such service.
- The Hon'ble High Court of Madras
dismissed the applicants' case regarding RTP service counting on the
grounds of delay and latches. The court found that the claims were not
timely filed, which contributed to the dismissal of the case.
- The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa rejected
the claims of employees solely on the grounds of delay and latches. This
indicates that the court found the claims to be untimely and therefore not
valid for consideration.
- In its order dated 22.03.2024, the
Hon'ble CAT, Ernakulam Bench denied benefits to RTP officials on the
grounds of merits as well as on delay and latches. The court concluded
that the claims made by the RTP officials were not justified.
- The Hon'ble CAT provided reasons for
denying benefits to RTP officials based on merits as well as on delay and
latches. This indicates that the claims were not only found lacking in
merit but were also considered untimely.
- The other relevant judgments regarding
RTP personnel:
- Jagrit Mazdoor Union vs. Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Ltd. (29.11.1989): The Supreme Court
directed the completion of the absorption process for RTP officials by
31.03.1990, stating their claims would be regulated according to existing
rules.
- K.N. Sivadas Case (01.08.1997):
The Supreme Court ruled that RTP service prior to regular appointment
cannot be counted for departmental examinations, as it does not qualify as
service in an eligible cadre.
- Bipin Bihari Dutta vs. Union of India
(28.02.2012): The Patna High Court rejected the claim
to count RTP service towards regular service, relying on the K.N. Sivadas
judgment.
- Orissa High Court (24.07.2018):
The court dismissed claims based on delay and latches, indicating that the
applications were not filed in a timely manner.
- Madras High Court (24.01.2023):
The court dismissed claims for counting RTP service for seniority and
financial upgradation, emphasizing the lack of merit in the applications.
- CAT Ernakulam Bench (30.04.2024):
The court denied benefits for regularization of RTP service for increments
and other benefits, citing both merits and delay.
- Cuttack Bench (30.04.2024):
Similar to the Ernakulam Bench, this court denied benefits based on merits
and delay in filing claims.
- Madras High Court (04.11.2024):
The court dismissed demands for regularization of RTP service and fixation
of seniority and pay, reinforcing the rejection of claims based on
previous judgments.
- These judgments collectively emphasize
the importance of timely filing and the limitations on counting RTP
service for various benefits.
- The order directs all Heads of Circles to
defend cases filed by RTP personnel based on the policy of RTP and
relevant judgments. It emphasizes the importance of referring to previous
judgments at the initial stage to strengthen the Department's position.
- Additionally, it suggests considering
filing additional affidavits or review petitions if favorable judgments
for RTP personnel are found in pending cases.
- WHY THE DEPARTMENT BECOME SO ADAMANT TO REJECT THE GENUINE CLAIMS OF ITS OFFICIALS?
Post a Comment