RTP service must be counted as regular service for seniority and consequential benefits.

The applicants were appointed as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistants in the Department of Posts.

They sought to be treated as regular Postal Assistants from the date of their initial RTP appointments, rather than from the date of their subsequent regularization.

This would entitle them to consequential benefits including seniority, pay fixation, and financial upgradations under the MACP scheme.

The applicants previously filed representations following directions in OA No. 4196/2018, but the respondent authorities rejected their claims via order dated 24.06.2019 (Annexure A/1), contending the applicants were not parties to previous litigations where such benefits were granted.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to be treated as regular Postal Assistants from the date of their appointment as RTP for the purpose of seniority and consequential benefits

2. Whether the respondents are justified in denying benefits of established judicial precedents solely on the ground that the applicants were not parties to those specific litigations

The Tribunal relied on the precedent set by the Jabalpur Bench in T.A. No. 82 of 1986 (upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP No. 11313 of 1987), which established the right of RTP candidates to count their service for specific benefits.

The principle of in rem application of service law rulings as affirmed by the Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 779-780 of 2013 (K. Manohara v. UOI) and the Hon’ble Telangana High Court in WP No. 17400/2016.

The core legal principle states that in matters of pay scales and service benefits, the State is obliged to follow the dicta of the Supreme Court and High Courts for all similarly situated employees to avoid unnecessary litigation.

The Tribunal found that the controversy regarding RTP service had been conclusively settled by higher judicial forums, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Telangana High Court.

The Tribunal criticized the respondents' stance that benefits could only be extended to the specific litigants (parties) in those cases, labeling this reasoning "misplaced".

The Court reasoned that since the facts and circumstances were identical to those in the K. Manohara and Rakesh Pal Singh cases, the respondents were legally obliged to extend the benefits suo moto to the applicants.

By failing to do so, the respondents unnecessarily forced the applicants into litigation.

It directed the respondents to treat the applicants as regular Postal Assistants from their initial RTP appointment dates and extend all consequential benefits, including seniority, pay fixation, MACP, and revised pension, in line with the decision of the Telangana High Court in WP No. 17400 and 17425 of 2016.