Service rendered in Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) must be counted for seniority and all consequential benefits.

The petitioners filed Contempt Petitions (CPs) alleging willful defiance by the respondents of the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in its order dated 16.12.2024

The original dispute involved the counting of service from the date of conferment of Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) status for the purpose of granting consequential benefits.

The respondents challenged the Tribunal's order before the Hon’ble High Court and subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (SLP); however, both challenges were dismissed

Following these dismissals, the respondents filed compliance affidavits asserting that they had revised the appointment dates of the petitioners to reflect their RTP status and had processed consequential payments

1. Whether the respondents willfully defied the directions of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2024 regarding the counting of RTP service and grant of consequential benefits

2. Whether the actions taken by the respondents, as detailed in the compliance affidavits, constitute substantial compliance sufficient to discharge the contempt notices

The court applied the principles governing contempt of lawful orders under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, specifically focusing on "willful defiance" versus "substantial compliance."

The core legal principle derived from the underlying judgment was that service rendered under the Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) status must be counted for seniority and consequential benefits, such as ACP/MACP schemes

The Tribunal examined the respondents' additional compliance affidavit, which detailed the revised appointment dates and the payments made to the petitioners

Regarding the petitioners represented by Mr. Bhardwaj, the Tribunal noted that while substantial compliance was achieved, errors regarding the specific dates for ACP/MACP benefits were alleged.

The Tribunal determined these could be resolved through administrative representations rather than contempt proceedings, provided the respondents disposed of such representations within eight weeks

Regarding the three petitioners represented by Mr. Srivastava, the Tribunal found that the delay was due to external factors: one petitioner had expired (requiring legal heirs to approach the department), and two had failed to produce proof of their RTP appointment despite a prior court direction dated 07.01.2026

The Tribunal accepted the respondents' undertaking to process these remaining claims within eight weeks of receiving the necessary documentation

The petitioners were granted liberty to submit specific representations regarding ACP/MACP date errors, which the respondents must decide within eight weeks

Furthermore, the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner and the two petitioners lacking documentation were directed to approach the respondents, who must pass orders within eight weeks of receipt of said documents

The Tribunal granted the petitioners liberty to revive the CPs should the respondents fail to fulfill the undertakings recorded in the order