Reserved Training Pool service must count toward MACP and pensionary benefits for similarly situated employees.

The applicants, former Department of Posts employees, had rendered service under the Reserved Training Pool (RTP) Scheme.

They claimed that this service should be counted for benefits including financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and pensionary benefits.

The respondents rejected their claim by communication dated 22 November 2024 and raised, among other grounds, limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The applicants relied on decisions of the Telangana and Delhi High Courts; the respondents also relied on contrary Madras High Court decisions.

The Tribunal heard both OAs together because they raised an identical issue.

Whether the applicants’ service under the RTP Scheme should be counted for MACP and pensionary benefits, notwithstanding the respondents’ rejection of their claims.

Whether the contrary Madras High Court decisions or the respondents’ limitation objection justified denying the applicants the benefit of the Telangana and Delhi High Court decisions.

The Tribunal considered the respondents’ objection under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and their reliance on Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava.

It principally relied on the Telangana High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 17400/2016 and Delhi High Court decisions, including Union of India v. Raksh Pal Singh and Union of India v. Dheeraj Pal, which supported counting RTP service for service-related benefits.

The Delhi High Court had held that the relevant judgment should apply in rem to similarly situated personnel, rather than requiring each employee to litigate individually.

The Tribunal also distinguished the Madras High Court decisions because those cases involved claims concerning seniority, regularisation, and related matters, whereas the present applicants sought MACP and pensionary benefits and did not claim fixation of seniority.

The Tribunal found that the Delhi High Court had considered the contrary Madras High Court decisions and nevertheless upheld the entitlement to count RTP service for financial benefits.

It treated those Delhi High Court rulings, including the ruling that the benefit applied in rem, as binding.

The Tribunal also noted that the applicants were not seeking retrospective seniority, which distinguished their claims from the Madras cases relied on by the respondents.

In light of the prior decisions, including the Delhi High Court’s dismissal of a later challenge on the same issue, it found no basis to depart from its recent decision in Satyapal Sharma & Ors.

The communication dated 22 November 2024 was set aside to the extent that it stood in the way of the applicants receiving relief.

The respondents were directed to extend to the applicants the benefits flowing from the Telangana High Court decisions, including consequential MACP and pensionary benefits under the applicable rules, preferably within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The respondents were also directed to pay each applicant ₹5,000 in costs within the same period.

The associated MAs were disposed of.