Reserved Training Pool service counts as qualifying service for MACP and pensionary benefits.

The twenty-one applicants, formerly engaged under the Reserved Training Pool (RTP) Scheme by the Department of Posts, sought the counting of their RTP service as qualifying service for consequential benefits, including the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme and pensionary benefits

The applicants moved a Miscellaneous Application (MA) for the disposal of their case in light of coordinate bench judgments in Raksh Pal Singh v. Union of India (OA 3466/2019) and Mukesh Bhardwaj v. Union of India (OA 3628/2019), which were upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

The respondents admitted that the legal issue was identical but argued that implementing the order would cause hardship as the relevant employment records from over thirty years ago were no longer available

1. Whether the period of service rendered under the Reserved Training Pool (RTP) Scheme should be counted as qualifying service for the purpose of MACP and pensionary benefits

2. Whether the lack of official records due to the passage of time (over three decades) absolves the respondents from extending settled legal benefits to similarly situated employees

The Tribunal relied on the principle of parity and the doctrine that judgments on service matters should be applied in rem to all similarly situated employees to avoid multiple litigations

It applied the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Dheeraj Pal & Ors. [WP(C) No. 7301/2025] and Union of India & Ors. v. Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. [WP(C) No. 6973/2024], which mandated the counting of RTP service for financial benefits

The Tribunal also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against these principles had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 29726/2024

The Tribunal held that since the issue was squarely covered by prior judgments of the High Court and coordinate benches, the applicants were entitled to the same relief

Regarding the respondents' defense of missing records, the Tribunal found that such administrative difficulties cannot override the legal entitlement of the employees

To resolve the evidentiary gap, the Tribunal accepted the applicants’ proposal to provide their own attested copies of appointment or increment orders from the RTP period

The Tribunal emphasized that the government should not use different yardsticks for different members of the same service when a question of law has been settled

The respondents were ordered to extend the consequential benefits (MACP and pension) within six weeks of receiving said documents, in line with the decisions in Raksh Pal Singh and Mukesh Bhardwaj

No order as to costs was made