Service rendered under the Reserve Trained Pool Scheme must count toward consequential benefits.

The applicants, former Sorting Assistants and Postal Assistants appointed under the Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) Scheme during 1983–1985 and later regularised, sought counting of their RTP service for service benefits, including increments, MACP and pensionary benefits.

The Department rejected their claims, relying in part on the asserted limits of earlier judgments and contrary decisions of the Cuttack and Hyderabad Benches of the Tribunal.

The applicants challenged those rejection orders, relying on judgments granting similar relief to RTP employees, including decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court.

The respondents opposed the applications on the grounds of limitation and adverse Tribunal decisions.

1. Whether the applicants’ RTP service was required to be counted for service-related and consequential benefits, in light of judgments granting relief to similarly situated employees.

2. Whether the applications should be rejected as time-barred or on the basis of contrary Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal applied the principle that similarly situated employees should receive equal treatment and that a judgment granting relief may operate in rem where the relevant court has so held.

It relied on the Telangana High Court’s decision in W.P. No. 17400/2016 (and the connected matter), concerning the counting of RTP service, and on the Delhi High Court’s decisions in Union of India v. Raksh Pal Singh, Union of India v. Dheeraj Pal and Union of India v. Mukesh Bhardwaj.

The Tribunal noted that the relevant Delhi High Court decisions had been upheld or followed by the Supreme Court, and that the Delhi High Court had held the Dheeraj Pal judgment applicable to similarly situated personnel generally.

No specific statute or rule is identified as the basis of the decision.

The Tribunal found that the issue in both applications was covered by the cited High Court decisions, which had recognised the entitlement of similarly situated RTP employees to have that service counted for service benefits.

It accepted that the Delhi High Court had rejected the limitation objection in comparable proceedings, reasoning that different members of the same service should not be required to litigate separately for the same benefit and that the judgment in Dheeraj Pal operated in rem.

Although the respondents relied on contrary Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal considered the later, binding High Court rulings to govern the applicants’ claims.

It directed the respondents to extend to the applicants the benefit flowing from the Telangana High Court’s judgment in W.P. Nos. 17400/2016 and 17420/2016, including applicable consequential benefits such as MACP upgradation and pensionary benefits.

Compliance was directed preferably within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The respondents were also directed to pay ₹5,000 in costs to each applicant within the same period.