COUNTING OF SERVICE RENDERED BY RESERVE TRAINED POOL (RTP) PERSONNEL PRIOR TO THEIR REGULAR APPOINTMENT AS POSTAL ASSISTANTS (PAs)/SORTING ASSISTANTS (SAs)-REGARDING.

D.G. Posts No. 44-1/2011-SPB.II dated 12 April, 2012.

I am directed refer to Directorate’s letter of even number dated 13.1.2011 on the above subject and to say that the issue of counting of service rendered by Reserve Trained Pool(RTP) personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistants(PAs)/Sorting Assistants (SAs) for promotion, seniority and grant of MACP was under consideration of the Directorate.

2. The RTP Scheme was introduced in the year 1980 as per which a panel of such persons was retained who could not be covered under the number of vacancies declared for regular appointment as PA/SA. When required they were detailed on duty on wages to be paid on hourly basis to meet the short time needs and current needs. The said RTP personnel were given priority for absorption against vacancies, which occurred subsequently. In the year 1983 the RTP personnel were given an option to opt for servicing Army Postal Services (APS).Such persons who opted so were appointed as PA/SA on ad-hoc basis and deputed to APS. The said RTP candidates deputed to APS were eligible to get the benefit of regular appointment in the Civil Post. The RTP scheme was abolished w.e.f. 4.3.1986.

3. While furnishing the information asked for from the Circles, the Orissa Circle has brought to the notice of the Directorate that three OAs filed by three officials in the Cuttack Bench of Hon`ble CAT seeking regularization of the services rendered under RTP scheme were dismissed on 10.4.2003 for the reason that the issue raised has already been decided by the Apex Court on 1.8.1997 in the case of UOI and another Vs K. Sivados and others in C.A. No. 80-123 of 1996

4. It is observed that Apex Court in their judgment dated 01.08.1997 has discussed the case in detail and has rejected the case for grant of Productivity Linked Bonus to RTP personnel. As regards grant of benefit of counting their services as RTP personnel for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental examination the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the same judgment has observed that the relevant rule provides that the candidate “ must have put in at least five years continuous satisfactory service in one or more eligible cadres” and hence pronounced that any service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of the said rule because it can not be considered as service in any eligible cadre. Thus, the Apex Court has held that Tribunal was wrong in granting to RTP personnel the benefit of service rendered by them prior to their regular appointment, for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental promotion examination.

5. In another case Hon`ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5739 of 2005 in the case of UOI Vs Shri Mathivanan vide their judgment dated 9.6.2006 has held that ad-hoc service rendered in APS by RTP personnel should be counted for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme. This was mainly due to the fact that the said Scheme did not mention the requirement of ‘regular service’ in para 1 of the Scheme for being eligible for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme .In fact, the Hon1ble Supreme Court observed that it was not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Keeping in view the Apex Court’s decision in M. Mathivanan’s case and the fact the TBOP is not to be granted on the basis of seniority, it was decided to extend the benefit of the Apex Court’s order to similarly placed serving officials vide Directorate’s letter No. 93-25/2003-SPB.II dated 26.7.2010.

6. As per MACP scheme, the officials are eligible for grant of three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. For the purpose, it has been laid down that ‘regular service’ for the purpose of the MACPs shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption /re-employment basis. It has been categorically stated that the service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning.

7. In view of the judgment dated 01.08.1997 delivered in C.A. 80-123 1996 in the case of UOI & another Vs K.N.Sivados and others and provisions contained in MACP scheme, it has been decided by the Competent Authority that the service rendered under RTP scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as PA/SA can not be counted for promotion , seniority and grant of MACP.

8. The above decision may be taken into consideration while defending the court case. The representations received on the subject may also be dealt with accordingly.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar)

Director (Staff)

D.G. Posts No. 44-1/2011-SPB.II dated 12 April, 2012.

I am directed refer to Directorate’s letter of even number dated 13.1.2011 on the above subject and to say that the issue of counting of service rendered by Reserve Trained Pool(RTP) personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistants(PAs)/Sorting Assistants (SAs) for promotion, seniority and grant of MACP was under consideration of the Directorate.

2. The RTP Scheme was introduced in the year 1980 as per which a panel of such persons was retained who could not be covered under the number of vacancies declared for regular appointment as PA/SA. When required they were detailed on duty on wages to be paid on hourly basis to meet the short time needs and current needs. The said RTP personnel were given priority for absorption against vacancies, which occurred subsequently. In the year 1983 the RTP personnel were given an option to opt for servicing Army Postal Services (APS).Such persons who opted so were appointed as PA/SA on ad-hoc basis and deputed to APS. The said RTP candidates deputed to APS were eligible to get the benefit of regular appointment in the Civil Post. The RTP scheme was abolished w.e.f. 4.3.1986.

3. While furnishing the information asked for from the Circles, the Orissa Circle has brought to the notice of the Directorate that three OAs filed by three officials in the Cuttack Bench of Hon`ble CAT seeking regularization of the services rendered under RTP scheme were dismissed on 10.4.2003 for the reason that the issue raised has already been decided by the Apex Court on 1.8.1997 in the case of UOI and another Vs K. Sivados and others in C.A. No. 80-123 of 1996

4. It is observed that Apex Court in their judgment dated 01.08.1997 has discussed the case in detail and has rejected the case for grant of Productivity Linked Bonus to RTP personnel. As regards grant of benefit of counting their services as RTP personnel for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental examination the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the same judgment has observed that the relevant rule provides that the candidate “ must have put in at least five years continuous satisfactory service in one or more eligible cadres” and hence pronounced that any service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of the said rule because it can not be considered as service in any eligible cadre. Thus, the Apex Court has held that Tribunal was wrong in granting to RTP personnel the benefit of service rendered by them prior to their regular appointment, for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental promotion examination.

5. In another case Hon`ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5739 of 2005 in the case of UOI Vs Shri Mathivanan vide their judgment dated 9.6.2006 has held that ad-hoc service rendered in APS by RTP personnel should be counted for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme. This was mainly due to the fact that the said Scheme did not mention the requirement of ‘regular service’ in para 1 of the Scheme for being eligible for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme .In fact, the Hon1ble Supreme Court observed that it was not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Keeping in view the Apex Court’s decision in M. Mathivanan’s case and the fact the TBOP is not to be granted on the basis of seniority, it was decided to extend the benefit of the Apex Court’s order to similarly placed serving officials vide Directorate’s letter No. 93-25/2003-SPB.II dated 26.7.2010.

6. As per MACP scheme, the officials are eligible for grant of three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. For the purpose, it has been laid down that ‘regular service’ for the purpose of the MACPs shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption /re-employment basis. It has been categorically stated that the service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning.

7. In view of the judgment dated 01.08.1997 delivered in C.A. 80-123 1996 in the case of UOI & another Vs K.N.Sivados and others and provisions contained in MACP scheme, it has been decided by the Competent Authority that the service rendered under RTP scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as PA/SA can not be counted for promotion , seniority and grant of MACP.

8. The above decision may be taken into consideration while defending the court case. The representations received on the subject may also be dealt with accordingly.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar)

Director (Staff)

D.G. Posts No. 44-1/2011-SPB.II dated 12 April, 2012.

I am directed refer to Directorate’s letter of even number dated 13.1.2011 on the above subject and to say that the issue of counting of service rendered by Reserve Trained Pool(RTP) personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistants(PAs)/Sorting Assistants (SAs) for promotion, seniority and grant of MACP was under consideration of the Directorate.

2. The RTP Scheme was introduced in the year 1980 as per which a panel of such persons was retained who could not be covered under the number of vacancies declared for regular appointment as PA/SA. When required they were detailed on duty on wages to be paid on hourly basis to meet the short time needs and current needs. The said RTP personnel were given priority for absorption against vacancies, which occurred subsequently. In the year 1983 the RTP personnel were given an option to opt for servicing Army Postal Services (APS).Such persons who opted so were appointed as PA/SA on ad-hoc basis and deputed to APS. The said RTP candidates deputed to APS were eligible to get the benefit of regular appointment in the Civil Post. The RTP scheme was abolished w.e.f. 4.3.1986.

3. While furnishing the information asked for from the Circles, the Orissa Circle has brought to the notice of the Directorate that three OAs filed by three officials in the Cuttack Bench of Hon`ble CAT seeking regularization of the services rendered under RTP scheme were dismissed on 10.4.2003 for the reason that the issue raised has already been decided by the Apex Court on 1.8.1997 in the case of UOI and another Vs K. Sivados and others in C.A. No. 80-123 of 1996

4. It is observed that Apex Court in their judgment dated 01.08.1997 has discussed the case in detail and has rejected the case for grant of Productivity Linked Bonus to RTP personnel. As regards grant of benefit of counting their services as RTP personnel for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental examination the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the same judgment has observed that the relevant rule provides that the candidate “ must have put in at least five years continuous satisfactory service in one or more eligible cadres” and hence pronounced that any service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of the said rule because it can not be considered as service in any eligible cadre. Thus, the Apex Court has held that Tribunal was wrong in granting to RTP personnel the benefit of service rendered by them prior to their regular appointment, for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental promotion examination.

5. In another case Hon`ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5739 of 2005 in the case of UOI Vs Shri Mathivanan vide their judgment dated 9.6.2006 has held that ad-hoc service rendered in APS by RTP personnel should be counted for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme. This was mainly due to the fact that the said Scheme did not mention the requirement of ‘regular service’ in para 1 of the Scheme for being eligible for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme .In fact, the Hon1ble Supreme Court observed that it was not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Keeping in view the Apex Court’s decision in M. Mathivanan’s case and the fact the TBOP is not to be granted on the basis of seniority, it was decided to extend the benefit of the Apex Court’s order to similarly placed serving officials vide Directorate’s letter No. 93-25/2003-SPB.II dated 26.7.2010.

6. As per MACP scheme, the officials are eligible for grant of three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. For the purpose, it has been laid down that ‘regular service’ for the purpose of the MACPs shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption /re-employment basis. It has been categorically stated that the service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning.

7. In view of the judgment dated 01.08.1997 delivered in C.A. 80-123 1996 in the case of UOI & another Vs K.N.Sivados and others and provisions contained in MACP scheme, it has been decided by the Competent Authority that the service rendered under RTP scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as PA/SA can not be counted for promotion , seniority and grant of MACP.

8. The above decision may be taken into consideration while defending the court case. The representations received on the subject may also be dealt with accordingly.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar)

Director (Staff)

D.G. Posts No. 44-1/2011-SPB.II dated 12 April, 2012.

I am directed refer to Directorate’s letter of even number dated 13.1.2011 on the above subject and to say that the issue of counting of service rendered by Reserve Trained Pool(RTP) personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistants(PAs)/Sorting Assistants (SAs) for promotion, seniority and grant of MACP was under consideration of the Directorate.

2. The RTP Scheme was introduced in the year 1980 as per which a panel of such persons was retained who could not be covered under the number of vacancies declared for regular appointment as PA/SA. When required they were detailed on duty on wages to be paid on hourly basis to meet the short time needs and current needs. The said RTP personnel were given priority for absorption against vacancies, which occurred subsequently. In the year 1983 the RTP personnel were given an option to opt for servicing Army Postal Services (APS).Such persons who opted so were appointed as PA/SA on ad-hoc basis and deputed to APS. The said RTP candidates deputed to APS were eligible to get the benefit of regular appointment in the Civil Post. The RTP scheme was abolished w.e.f. 4.3.1986.

3. While furnishing the information asked for from the Circles, the Orissa Circle has brought to the notice of the Directorate that three OAs filed by three officials in the Cuttack Bench of Hon`ble CAT seeking regularization of the services rendered under RTP scheme were dismissed on 10.4.2003 for the reason that the issue raised has already been decided by the Apex Court on 1.8.1997 in the case of UOI and another Vs K. Sivados and others in C.A. No. 80-123 of 1996

4. It is observed that Apex Court in their judgment dated 01.08.1997 has discussed the case in detail and has rejected the case for grant of Productivity Linked Bonus to RTP personnel. As regards grant of benefit of counting their services as RTP personnel for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental examination the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the same judgment has observed that the relevant rule provides that the candidate “ must have put in at least five years continuous satisfactory service in one or more eligible cadres” and hence pronounced that any service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of the said rule because it can not be considered as service in any eligible cadre. Thus, the Apex Court has held that Tribunal was wrong in granting to RTP personnel the benefit of service rendered by them prior to their regular appointment, for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental promotion examination.

5. In another case Hon`ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5739 of 2005 in the case of UOI Vs Shri Mathivanan vide their judgment dated 9.6.2006 has held that ad-hoc service rendered in APS by RTP personnel should be counted for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme. This was mainly due to the fact that the said Scheme did not mention the requirement of ‘regular service’ in para 1 of the Scheme for being eligible for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme .In fact, the Hon1ble Supreme Court observed that it was not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Keeping in view the Apex Court’s decision in M. Mathivanan’s case and the fact the TBOP is not to be granted on the basis of seniority, it was decided to extend the benefit of the Apex Court’s order to similarly placed serving officials vide Directorate’s letter No. 93-25/2003-SPB.II dated 26.7.2010.

6. As per MACP scheme, the officials are eligible for grant of three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. For the purpose, it has been laid down that ‘regular service’ for the purpose of the MACPs shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption /re-employment basis. It has been categorically stated that the service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning.

7. In view of the judgment dated 01.08.1997 delivered in C.A. 80-123 1996 in the case of UOI & another Vs K.N.Sivados and others and provisions contained in MACP scheme, it has been decided by the Competent Authority that the service rendered under RTP scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as PA/SA can not be counted for promotion , seniority and grant of MACP.

8. The above decision may be taken into consideration while defending the court case. The representations received on the subject may also be dealt with accordingly.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar)

Director (Staff)

D.G. Posts No. 44-1/2011-SPB.II dated 12 April, 2012.

I am directed refer to Directorate’s letter of even number dated 13.1.2011 on the above subject and to say that the issue of counting of service rendered by Reserve Trained Pool(RTP) personnel prior to their regular appointment as Postal Assistants(PAs)/Sorting Assistants (SAs) for promotion, seniority and grant of MACP was under consideration of the Directorate.

2. The RTP Scheme was introduced in the year 1980 as per which a panel of such persons was retained who could not be covered under the number of vacancies declared for regular appointment as PA/SA. When required they were detailed on duty on wages to be paid on hourly basis to meet the short time needs and current needs. The said RTP personnel were given priority for absorption against vacancies, which occurred subsequently. In the year 1983 the RTP personnel were given an option to opt for servicing Army Postal Services (APS).Such persons who opted so were appointed as PA/SA on ad-hoc basis and deputed to APS. The said RTP candidates deputed to APS were eligible to get the benefit of regular appointment in the Civil Post. The RTP scheme was abolished w.e.f. 4.3.1986.

3. While furnishing the information asked for from the Circles, the Orissa Circle has brought to the notice of the Directorate that three OAs filed by three officials in the Cuttack Bench of Hon`ble CAT seeking regularization of the services rendered under RTP scheme were dismissed on 10.4.2003 for the reason that the issue raised has already been decided by the Apex Court on 1.8.1997 in the case of UOI and another Vs K. Sivados and others in C.A. No. 80-123 of 1996

4. It is observed that Apex Court in their judgment dated 01.08.1997 has discussed the case in detail and has rejected the case for grant of Productivity Linked Bonus to RTP personnel. As regards grant of benefit of counting their services as RTP personnel for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental examination the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the same judgment has observed that the relevant rule provides that the candidate “ must have put in at least five years continuous satisfactory service in one or more eligible cadres” and hence pronounced that any service rendered by RTP personnel prior to their regular appointment in the cadre cannot count for the purpose of the said rule because it can not be considered as service in any eligible cadre. Thus, the Apex Court has held that Tribunal was wrong in granting to RTP personnel the benefit of service rendered by them prior to their regular appointment, for the purpose of their eligibility to appear for the departmental promotion examination.

5. In another case Hon`ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 5739 of 2005 in the case of UOI Vs Shri Mathivanan vide their judgment dated 9.6.2006 has held that ad-hoc service rendered in APS by RTP personnel should be counted for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme. This was mainly due to the fact that the said Scheme did not mention the requirement of ‘regular service’ in para 1 of the Scheme for being eligible for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP scheme .In fact, the Hon1ble Supreme Court observed that it was not a case where promotion to the higher post is to be made only on the basis of seniority. Keeping in view the Apex Court’s decision in M. Mathivanan’s case and the fact the TBOP is not to be granted on the basis of seniority, it was decided to extend the benefit of the Apex Court’s order to similarly placed serving officials vide Directorate’s letter No. 93-25/2003-SPB.II dated 26.7.2010.

6. As per MACP scheme, the officials are eligible for grant of three financial upgradations on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of service respectively. For the purpose, it has been laid down that ‘regular service’ for the purpose of the MACPs shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption /re-employment basis. It has been categorically stated that the service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning.

7. In view of the judgment dated 01.08.1997 delivered in C.A. 80-123 1996 in the case of UOI & another Vs K.N.Sivados and others and provisions contained in MACP scheme, it has been decided by the Competent Authority that the service rendered under RTP scheme by the personnel prior to their regular appointment as PA/SA can not be counted for promotion , seniority and grant of MACP.

8. The above decision may be taken into consideration while defending the court case. The representations received on the subject may also be dealt with accordingly.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar)

Director (Staff)