Benefits granted to similarly situated RTP employees must be extended uniformly, including consequential pensionary entitlements.

The applicants, serving or retired employees of the Department of Posts, had initially been selected and trained as Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) personnel for appointment as Postal Assistants.

They performed duties comparable to regular Postal/Sorting Assistants and were paid hourly wages, but their services were not counted from the date of RTP appointment for purposes of increments, seniority, promotion, pension, or related benefits.

Following abolition of the RTP scheme and their subsequent regularisation, the applicants sought recognition of their RTP service.

Their representations were rejected by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhopal Division, through orders challenged in the Original Application.

The respondents primarily opposed the application on the ground of delay, noting that some applicants had retired and others were nearing retirement.

The applicants relied on the Tribunal’s subsequent decision dated 10 July 2026 in O.A. No. 200/256/2019 and connected matters, which had granted similar relief to RTP personnel.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to have their service rendered as RTP personnel counted for consequential service benefits, including seniority, pay fixation, increments, promotion, MACP benefits, and pensionary benefits.

2. Whether the applicants could be granted the benefit of judgments and Tribunal orders extending similar relief to other similarly situated RTP employees, notwithstanding the respondents’ objection of delay.

3. Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicants’ representations was liable to be reconsidered in light of the Tribunal’s decision dated 10 July 2026.

The Tribunal applied the principle that similarly situated employees in the same service should not be subjected to different standards and that a judgment granting service benefits may be extended in rem to all similarly situated personnel, without requiring each employee to institute separate proceedings.

It relied on the judgment of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 17400/2016, the Delhi High Court decisions in W.P.(C) Nos. 7301/2025 and 7412/2025, the Principal Bench decisions in O.A. Nos. 4477/2024, 4478/2024 and 610/2025, and the Chhattisgarh High Court decision in WPS No. 1912/2021.

These authorities supported extension of the relevant RTP-service benefits, including consequential benefits such as MACP upgradation and pensionary benefits, to similarly placed employees.

The Tribunal also noted that the Department had already extended comparable benefits to similarly situated employees in the Hyderabad, New Delhi and Chhattisgarh Regions.

The Tribunal found that the applicants’ factual position was materially identical to that considered in O.A. No. 200/256/2019 and connected matters decided on 10 July 2026.

Since the applicants had rendered service as RTP personnel before regular appointment and had allegedly been denied the same consequential benefits granted to similarly situated employees, the Tribunal held that the earlier decision covered their case.

The Tribunal further relied on the principle that the Department could not adopt different standards for members of the same service or compel every similarly situated employee to litigate separately.

Although delay was raised by the respondents, the Tribunal did not treat it as a bar and directed reconsideration of the applicants’ claims in accordance with the earlier order.

The respondents were directed to reconsider the applicants’ cases in terms of the Tribunal’s order dated 10 July 2026 in O.A. No. 200/256/2019 and connected matters, which recognised entitlement to the applicable consequential benefits arising from the treatment of RTP service, including MACP and pensionary benefits.

The reconsideration exercise was ordered to be completed within 90 days from receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

There was no order as to costs.