Service rendered as Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) must be counted for MACP and pensionary benefits.

The applicant was selected as a Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Postal Assistant in 1983 and joined on 24.11.1983

He was later regularized in the pay scale effective 30.06.1987 and superannuated as a Sub Post Master on 31.08.2017

The respondents refused to count his pre-regularization service (1983–1987) for financial benefits, specifically the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes, arguing that RTP service was on an hourly basis and did not count toward regular cadre seniority

The applicant filed this OA seeking to count his past RTP service for seniority, pay fixation, and pensionary benefits

1. Whether the service rendered as a Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) candidate prior to regularization should be counted for the purpose of granting financial upgradations under TBOP/MACP and pensionary benefits

2. Whether the judicial precedents set by other Benches of the Tribunal and High Courts regarding RTP service apply in rem to all similarly situated employees

The court primarily applied the principle of judicial consistency and the doctrine of judgments in rem as established in Dheeraj Pal v. Union of India

It relied on the precedent from Raksh Pal Singh v. Union of India (OA No. 3466/2019), which held that RTP service must be counted for financial benefits, a view affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court

Furthermore, the court applied the ratio from the Telangana High Court in K. Manohara v. Union of India, which emphasized that once a legal issue regarding pay scales and service benefits is settled by the Higher Judiciary, the government is obligated to extend those benefits to all similarly situated persons suo motu to avoid unnecessary litigation

The Tribunal found that the controversy regarding RTP service is no longer res integra (unsettled)

The respondents' reliance on older cases like K.N. Sivadas was outweighed by more recent, binding precedents from the Principal Bench and various High Courts (Delhi, Telangana, Kerala, and Chhattisgarh), all of which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was "similarly situated" to the petitioners in Raksh Pal Singh and Dheeraj Pal, where it was explicitly held that denying these benefits to some while granting them to others constitutes discrimination

Since the Delhi High Court had clarified that the relief in these matters applies in rem, the respondents were legally bound to extend the same benefits to the applicant without compelling him to litigate

It held that the applicant is entitled to have his RTP service counted for financial upgradation under MACP and for the calculation of pensionary benefits

The respondents were directed to extend the benefits of the judgments in Dheeraj Pal and Raksh Pal Singh to the applicant within 12 weeks, including the necessary pay fixation and pension revision