Reserve Trained Pool service prior to regularization counts toward qualifying service for pension and financial upgradation.

The ten applicants were recruited as Postal Assistants under the "Reserve Trained Pool" (RTP) Scheme following a selection process in 1982

They joined service on 08.02.1983 on a provisional basis and underwent requisite training

While they were eventually regularized as Postal Assistants between 1988 and 1993, the respondents declined to count their pre-regularization RTP service for the purposes of seniority, pay fixation, financial upgradation under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes, or pensionary benefits

The applicants, now superannuated, sought parity with similarly situated employees who had obtained favorable orders from various benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and higher courts

The respondents contested the claim, arguing that the RTP scheme was a temporary arrangement for short-duty staff paid on an hourly basis and that the Supreme Court in K.N. Sivadas v. Union of India (1997) had ruled against counting such service

Whether the service rendered by the applicants as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) candidates prior to their regularization is liable to be counted for the purposes of financial upgradation (MACP/TBOP), pension, seniority, and other consequential benefits.

The court primarily relied on the principle of parity and non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, as elucidated in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. (2015), which mandates that relief granted to one set of employees should be extended to all identically situated persons

It applied the precedent set by the CAT Principal Bench in Dheeraj Pal & Ors. v. Union of India (O.A. No. 823/2024), which held that RTP service must be counted for financial benefits—a decision subsequently affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court

The court also considered the RTP Scheme (1980) guidelines regarding the recruitment and eventual absorption of trained reserves

The Tribunal reasoned that the legal status of RTP service is no longer res integra (an open question) due to extensive litigation ending in favor of employees

It noted that coordinate benches in Hyderabad, Ernakulam, and Jabalpur had consistently allowed similar claims, which were upheld by respective High Courts and the Supreme Court

The Tribunal specifically highlighted the Delhi High Court's observation in the Dheeraj Pal litigation that such judgments operate in rem (applying to all similarly situated personnel), thereby obligating the Department to extend benefits suomotu rather than forcing retirees into unnecessary litigation

Regarding the respondents' reliance on the 1997 K.N. Sivadas judgment, the Tribunal found it superseded by more recent judicial pronouncements that explicitly recognized RTP service for career progression and retirement benefits

The Tribunal concluded that denying these benefits to the applicants while granting them to others in the same pool would constitute a violation of Article 14

The respondents were directed to extend the benefits of the judgments in Dheeraj Pal and K. Manohara, granting the applicants financial upgradation under the MACP/TBOP schemes and revised pensionary benefits (including arrears)

The court ordered the respondents to comply with these directions within twelve weeks from the receipt of the order

No order was made as to costs