RTP service must be counted for consequential benefits of similarly situated employees, subject to verification.

The 15 applicants were former employees or dependants of employees of the Department of Posts who had initially rendered service under the Reserved Trained Pool (“RTP”) Scheme and were subsequently absorbed or appointed on a regular basis. They sought counting of their RTP service for consequential service benefits, including seniority, TBOP/BCR, financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme and pensionary benefits.

The respondents rejected their claims through communications dated 22 November 2024 and 7 May 2025, principally on the grounds that RTP engagement was temporary, contingent, hourly and outside sanctioned cadre posts, and that only service rendered after regular appointment could be counted.

The applicants relied upon decisions concerning similarly situated RTP employees, including V. Ravi Krishna v. Union of India, Rakshpal Singh v. Union of India, and Dheeraj Pal & Ors. v. Union of India, contending that the benefit had been judicially extended to all similarly situated personnel.

The respondents opposed the application on the grounds of limitation, delay and laches, acquiescence, waiver and absence of records relating to the applicants’ RTP engagement.

Whether the applicants’ service rendered under the RTP Scheme before their regular appointment could be counted for consequential service benefits, including MACP and pensionary benefits, subject to verification of the period actually served?

Whether the applicants’ claims were liable to be rejected on the grounds of limitation, delay and laches, acquiescence, waiver or their non-participation in the earlier proceedings?

Whether the respondents could deny the applicants parity with similarly situated RTP personnel who had obtained judicial recognition of the benefit?

The Tribunal applied the principle that similarly situated employees of the same service cannot be subjected to different standards in the grant of service benefits.

It relied upon V. Ravi Krishna v. Union of India, whose recognition of RTP service was affirmed in subsequent proceedings, and Rakshpal Singh v. Union of India, upheld by the Delhi High Court and not successfully challenged before the Supreme Court.

It further relied upon Dheeraj Pal & Ors. v. Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court held that the benefit should extend to all similarly situated personnel and that there could not be a different yardstick for members of the same service.

The Tribunal also considered subsequent decisions, including Mukesh Bhardwaj, Sangeeta Kaushik and Purshotam Dass Sharma, as reinforcing the finality and wider application of the RTP principle.

Although the respondents relied upon U.I. v. K.N. Sivadas, Jagrit Mazdoor Union v. MTNL, State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Bhandari, Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Union of India v. A. Durairaj for the propositions concerning the distinct status of RTP personnel and stale claims, the Tribunal held that the later RTP-specific decisions had addressed the controversy in the relevant factual and legal context.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicants’ claims related to service rendered several decades earlier and that, ordinarily, a stale claim could not be revived merely by a subsequent representation.

However, it held that the limitation objection could not be considered in isolation from the later judicial decisions specifically determining the legal consequences of RTP service in the Department of Posts.

The respondents did not dispute that the applicants had served under the RTP Scheme and were later regularly appointed; their principal defence was that RTP service was temporary and could not be counted.

Since the applicants claimed parity with a class of RTP employees who had already obtained judicial recognition of the benefit, and since the Delhi High Court had held that the benefit operated for similarly situated personnel, denying relief merely because the applicants were not parties to the earlier proceedings would produce impermissible differential treatment.

The Tribunal therefore directed verification of each applicant’s actual RTP service from the available records and extension of the consequential benefits recognised in the earlier decisions.

The communications dated 22 November 2024 and 7 May 2025 were set aside to the extent that they denied the applicants the RTP benefit solely because they had not been parties to the earlier litigation.

The respondents were directed to verify the applicants’ individual periods of RTP engagement and reckon such service for extending consequential benefits flowing from V. Ravi Krishna, Rakshpal Singh and Dheeraj Pal, including benefits under the MACP Scheme and pensionary benefits, wherever otherwise admissible under the applicable rules.

The respondents were also directed to undertake consequential refixation and release monetary benefits found due after verification.

The exercise was to be completed within 12 weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

There was no order as to costs.