Rules, Rights & Rites -143
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
CAT, Chennai Bench, regarding the Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) cases,
• The applicants, who were recruited as Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) candidates in the Department of Posts during the early 1980s, sought to have their RTP service counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits.
• The applicants relied on earlier judicial decisions, such as the M.R. Palanisamy case, where certain RTP candidates had successfully litigated to have their prior service recognized.
• The Tribunal noted that RTP candidates were a separate category of recruits who were only paid for the days they actually worked and did not hold regular substantive posts during their time in the pool.
• The judgment emphasized that under Rule 13 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (now 2021), qualifying service begins only from the date an employee takes charge of a post in a substantive capacity.
• The Tribunal found that the RTP period was essentially a waiting period for regular vacancy, and service rendered therein—without a formal appointment to a regular cadre—cannot be treated as qualifying service.
• The Tribunal clarified that previous orders (like those from the Madras High Court in 2011 and 2014) were often "in personam" (specific to those litigants) or based on different factual scenarios where the government had failed to challenge earlier adverse orders.
• Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. C. Girija, which held that if a person's initial entry was not against a sanctioned post, that period cannot be counted for pension.
• The judgment highlighted that many applicants approached the Tribunal after a long delay (decades after their retirement) only because they saw others succeeding in court. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court rulings stating that "fence-sitters" who wake up after a long delay are not entitled to the same benefits as diligent litigants.
• The Tribunal heavily
• emphasized the "Doctrine of Laches" (undue delay). It noted that the applicants had retired many years ago and had accepted their pension calculations at that time without protest.
• By not challenging the non-counting of RTP service at the time of their regular appointment or retirement, the applicants were deemed to have "acquiesced" (accepted) the situation.
• Since the legal issues had already been settled by the jurisdictional Madras High Court and the Apex Court against similar claims, the Tribunal found no merit in the current applications.
• A No. 147/2021 and all other listed original applications (OAs) were dismissed.
• All Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) for condonation of delay were also dismissed, and consequently, the OAs at the diary stage were rejected.
• The judgment delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, on February 17, 2026,
Post a Comment