Service rendered under Reserve Training Pool Scheme counts as regular service for all consequential benefits.

The respondents, employees of the Postal Department under the Reserve Training Pool (RTP) Scheme, sought to have their service period under said Scheme treated as regular service for all service benefits, including pension and financial upgradations.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), vide order dated 23 July 2025, allowed the respondents' claim based on its earlier decisions in Dhiraj Pal Ors. v. UOI and Naresh Kumar v. UOI.

The Union of India challenged the CAT’s order, arguing that the claims were belated (delay and laches) and that older Supreme Court precedents from 1989 and 1997 supported a contrary view.

1. Whether the period of service rendered under the Reserve Training Pool (RTP) Scheme must be treated as regular service for consequential benefits like MACP and pension.

2. Whether the respondents' claims were barred by delay and laches.

3. Whether the court should deviate from recent coordinate bench decisions and Supreme Court SLP dismissals in favor of older precedents.

The Court applied the principle of judicial parity and the doctrine of judgments in rem in service matters, as established in Union of India v. Raksh Pal Singh.

It followed the precedent set by the High Court for the State of Telangana in Union of India v. V. Ravi Krishna, which held that RTP service counts toward financial benefits.

The Court further adhered to the principle of judicial discipline, noting that when a coordinate bench has decided a matter and the Supreme Court has dismissed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) against such decisions—specifically in Union of India v. Sangeeta Kaushik where costs were imposed for re-litigating the issue—the matter stands settled.

The Court observed that the merits of the challenge had already been dismissed by a coordinate bench in the Raksh Pal Singh case, which is binding.

Regarding the argument of delay and laches, the Court held that there cannot be different yardsticks for members of the same service; once a benefit is granted to one group of similarly situated employees, it should be extended to all as a judgment in rem.

Although the Petitioner cited older Supreme Court rulings (Jagrit Mazdoor Union and K.N. Sivadas), the Court noted that the current legal landscape is defined by recent decisions and the Supreme Court's repeated dismissal of the Union’s SLPs on this specific issue.

The Court highlighted that the Supreme Court had even imposed costs of ₹25,000/- on the Union for continuing to litigate this settled dispute.

It held that the respondents are entitled to the benefit of having their RTP service counted as regular service for all consequential benefits, including MACP and pensionary benefits.

The petitioners were directed to comply with the directions as per the timelines established by the Tribunal.