Service rendered under RTP Scheme shall count toward seniority, promotion, and all incidental benefits.

The respondents were appointed as Sorting Assistants in the Department of Posts between 1982 and 1984 under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Scheme.

They performed the same duties as regular Sorting Assistants but were denied regularization from their initial appointment date and pay parity.

Seeking these benefits, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 3628/2019.

On August 4, 2025, the Tribunal allowed their application, directing that service under the RTP Scheme be counted for seniority and promotion.

The Union of India challenged this order via the present writ petition.

1. Whether the service rendered by Sorting Assistants under the RTP Scheme is entitled to be counted for the purposes of promotion, seniority, and other consequential benefits.

2. Whether the petitioners are justified in re-litigating an issue that has already attained finality before the Supreme Court.

Principle of stare decisis and the doctrine of finality of judgments.

Precedent set by the High Court of Telangana in Union of India v. Ravi Krishna (WP 17400/2016), which held that RTP Scheme service must be counted for seniority and promotion.

Delhi High Court decisions in Raksh Pal Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Dheeraj Pal, noting that the Supreme Court had already dismissed an SLP against Raksh Pal Singh.

The decision in Union of India v. Sangeeta Kaushik, where the Supreme Court imposed costs for re-agitating this specific issue.

The Court observed that the legal status of RTP Scheme workers is no longer res integra (an unsettled point of law).

The Court reasoned that since the respondents performed identical duties to regular employees, they were entitled to the same benefits as established in Ravi Krishna and Raksh Pal Singh.

The Court expressed "undisguised unhappiness" that the Union of India continued to litigate this settled matter despite previous admonitions and costs imposed by the Supreme Court in Sangeeta Kaushik.

The Court found the present case fully covered by its own recent coordinate bench decision in Union of India v. Purshotam Dass Sharma.

The Court dismissed the writ petition in limine (at the threshold) and issued a stern warning against future attempts to re-agitate this settled issue.