Pre-regularisation RTP service must count for financial and pensionary benefits of similarly situated employees.

The applicants were recruited to the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) of the Postal Department and asserted that they began service on 2 February 1983.

They were subsequently regularised as Postal Assistants between September 1987 and March 1988.

The Department calculated their service benefits from regularisation, rather than from their initial RTP engagement.

The applicants sought counting of RTP service for financial upgradations, pensionary and other consequential benefits, relying on decisions concerning similarly situated RTP employees.

The respondents opposed the claim, contending that RTP service did not count as qualifying service and relying, among other authorities, on Union of India v. K.N. Sivadas.

The applicants had also made a representation dated 9 June 2024, which had not resulted in relief.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to have their RTP service counted for financial and pensionary benefits, including MACP and related consequential benefits.

2. Whether the benefit granted to similarly situated RTP employees by prior judicial decisions was required to be extended to the applicants, notwithstanding the respondents’ reliance on contrary authority.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for the applicants’ original application.

The Tribunal applied the principle stated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014, that, as a general rule, identically situated employees should receive the same relief granted by a court to others; otherwise, differential treatment may violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

It also relied on the decisions concerning RTP employees in CAT Hyderabad O.A. Nos. 779 and 780 of 2013, and on the Delhi High Court’s treatment of the relevant benefit as applicable in rem to similarly situated personnel, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in the SLP proceedings referred to in the order.

The respondents relied on Jagrit Mazdoor Union v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Union of India v. K.N. Sivadas, which they cited for the position that pre-regularisation RTP service could not be counted.

The Tribunal considered that the applicants’ claim concerned the same RTP service and benefits addressed in the prior decisions relied on by them.

It noted that the Delhi High Court had held that the benefit should extend to all similarly situated personnel in rem, and that the Supreme Court had affirmed that decision.

Applying the equal-treatment principle in Arvind Kumar Srivastava, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants should not be required to pursue separate proceedings to obtain the benefit already granted to similarly placed employees.

It rejected the respondents’ cited authorities as inapplicable in light of the later in rem determination.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to extend to the applicants the benefit of CAT Hyderabad O.A. Nos. 779 and 780 of 2013, as affirmed by the higher courts, within three months of receiving a copy of the order.

The pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.