Rules, Rights & Rites -122
I usually post all important items related to official rulings, union news, and other general matters on my YouTube channels: Yourskayveeyes (English) and Anbudan Kayveeyes (Tamil).
However, due to the recent spate of orders and the high volume of information being received, I have not been able to convert every item into a video. Therefore, I am introducing these new slots to post current matters and updates that have not yet been published on YouTube. This ensures you stay informed on every detail, even if a video hasn't been made yet …………….Kayveeyes
Count of Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) service periods
• Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Cuttack Bench, in O.A. 275 of 2025 (Sri Chandan Kumar Behera vs. Union of India & Others):
• He entered training/service in 1983, was regularized on January 13, 1987, received periodic financial upgradations (TBOP/MACP), and retired from service on May 31, 2020.
• The applicant filed the Original Application (OA) to challenge a speaking order dated January 15, 2025, which rejected his claims. He requested the Tribunal to:
• Count his 154 days of induction training period for financial upgradations under TBOP/BCR and MACP schemes.
• Count his Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) service periods (from 1983 to January 12, 1987) as regular service for the purposes of seniority, increments, financial upgradation, and pensionary benefits.
• The respondents argued that as per a 2012 Postal Directorate letter, service rendered under the RTP scheme prior to regular appointment cannot be counted for promotions, seniority, or MACP.
• Under a November 2020 directive, officials claiming training credits had to submit an undertaking and documentary proof. The applicant was explicitly asked to submit this on December 2, 2020, but failed to provide the undertaking or supporting documents.
• The Tribunal observed that the applicant first raised his representations in 2019, 2020, and 2023—nearly three decades after his regular appointment. He only agitated the matter after noticing favourable judgments implemented case-specifically elsewhere.
• Relying on established legal principles, the Tribunal noted that submitting representations after an inordinate delay does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. It explicitly noted that "a dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix".
• The Tribunal cited a Madras High Court ruling highlighting that reopening settled service matters after decades places immense logistical stress on searching old records, disrupts promotional structures, and causes unfair financial strain on the government exchequer to satisfy "illogical demands".
• The Bench stated that the factual matrix of this case was squarely covered by the restrictive rulings of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (Union of India vs. G. Rajarathinam) and its own coordinate bench's decision in OA No. 535/2019, which rejected similar stale RTP claims.
• The Tribunal found no merit in shifting away from established precedents. O.A. 275 of 2025 was dismissed on the grounds of being strictly barred by limitation and gross delay.
• The Directorate informed that it has previously circulated judgements in favour of the Department via letters dated 18.11.2024, 20.01.2025, 20.06.2025, 07.04.2026, and 22.04.2026 to help circles contest and defend cases filed by RTP personnel.
• The letter specifically highlights a recent order dated 09.04.2026 by the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack Bench in OA No. 275/2025. In this case, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's plea for regularising service rendered during the RTP period for TBOP and MACP schemes.
• The Directorate notes that the Cuttack Bench dismissed the case because it was barred by limitation and gross delay , ruling that stale claims cannot be revived after nearly three decades. The Tribunal heavily relied on the Hon'ble Madras High Court judgement in Union of India & Ors. vs. G. Rajarathinam.
• All Postal Circles are requested to actively incorporate this Cuttack Bench judgement (dated 09.04.2026 in OA No. 275/2025) along with the facts and previously circulated judgements into the counter replies they file against RTP cases to defend the Department effectively.
(DG (P) F. No. X-18/12/2024-SPN-II. Dated 19th May, 2026.)
Post a Comment