Service rendered as Reserve Trained Pool must be counted for financial upgradation and pensionary benefits.

The ten applicants were recruited as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistants between 1983 and 1984 under a 1980 Scheme designed to manage staff shortages

They completed training and served as short-duty staff on hourly wages before being regularized as Postal Assistants between 1987 and 1989

Upon superannuation, the applicants sought to have their pre-regularization RTP service counted toward financial upgradations (TBOP/MACP), seniority, and pensionary benefits

The respondents contested this, arguing that the RTP Scheme was temporary, paid on an hourly basis, and did not legally provide for the counting of such service for regular benefits

1. Whether the services rendered by the applicants under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) scheme prior to their regularization should be counted for the purpose of granting financial upgradations (MACP/TBOP) and pensionary benefits

2. Whether the judicial precedents set by other Benches of the Tribunal and affirmed by the Supreme Court regarding RTP service apply "in rem" to the present applicants

The Court primarily applied the principle of parity in service matters as established in State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., which mandates that once a set of employees is granted relief by a court, all identically situated persons must be treated alike to avoid Article 14 violations

It relied on the precedent from Dheeraj Pal & Ors. v. Union of India (O.A. No. 823/2020), which held that RTP service is countable for financial benefits—a decision affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court

Additionally, the court referenced K. Manohara v. Union of India and K.S. Beena v. Union of India, which similarly validated the inclusion of RTP service for career progression and retirement benefits

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that RTP service was purely temporary and excluded by the specific terms of the 1980 Scheme. The court reasoned that the legal status of RTP service had already been definitively settled by multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court in favor of the employees

Following the Delhi High Court's reasoning in the Dheeraj Pal case, the Tribunal noted that the previous judgments were intended to apply "in rem," meaning the benefit should be extended to all similarly situated personnel without forcing each individual to litigate

Since the applicants' facts were identical to those in the Dheeraj Pal and Telangana (Manohara) cases, the Tribunal found no justification for the respondents to deny them the same credit for their initial service periods

The respondents were directed to extend these benefits and calculate all consequential arrears within 12 weeks of receiving the order, consistent with the mandates of the Principal Bench and the Supreme Court