6025/2024 - 2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6596

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Reserve Trained Pool - Counting of RTP service for financial benefits - MACP - Pension - The applicants, former RTP Postal Assistants, sought counting of pre-regularization RTP service for career progression benefits. The Tribunal, following the precedent set in Dheeraj Pal & Ors. v. Union of India (O.A. No.823/2020), affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court, held that such benefits must be extended to all similarly situated persons. The principle of equality under Article 14 mandates uniform treatment of identically placed employees.

(B) The contention that the RTP scheme did not provide for counting of RTP service was rejected as the Delhi High Court had upheld the Tribunal's order in rem, making the judgment applicable to all similarly situated personnel.

Facts of the case:
The applicants, 10 in number, were selected under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) scheme as Postal Assistants between 1983-84 and were regularized between 1987-1989. Their pre-regularization RTP service was not counted for service benefits like TBOP, MACP, pension, etc. Despite representations and similar relief granted by various Benches of the Tribunal, the respondents did not extend the benefit, leading to the present application.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the matter was covered by the decision in Dheeraj Pal & Ors. v. Union of India, which had been affirmed by the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court held that the judgment would apply in rem, and the benefit should be extended to all similarly situated personnel.

Issues: Whether the services rendered as Reserve Trained Pool prior to regularization should be counted for granting financial benefits like MACP and pension.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a court of law declares a benefit to a class of employees, all identically situated persons must be treated alike; failure to do so amounts to discrimination under Article 14. The decision in Dheeraj Pal's case (supra) and the orders of the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court were binding, and the respondents were directed to extend the benefits to the applicants.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Counting of pre-regularization service as Reserve Trained Pool for financial benefits under career progression schemes. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )

2. Applicants claim counting of RTP service relying on precedents; respondents deny entitlement under the scheme. (Para 6 , 7 )

3. Original Application allowed; respondents directed to extend benefits of service counting as per precedents. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )

4. Can service rendered as Reserve Trained Pool prior to regularization be counted for financial benefits under career progression schemes?

Yes, based on binding precedents affirmed up to the Supreme Court, such service is to be counted for MACP, pension, etc. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )

5. Must the benefit of a judgment in favor of similarly situated employees be extended to all identically placed persons?

Yes, the principle of equality under Article 14 requires that all similarly situated persons receive the same benefit without individual litigation. (Para 10 , 12 )

6. Are contrary judgments cited by the respondents valid in light of the binding precedent?

No, because the Delhi High Court's judgment affirming the CAT Principal Bench is binding and applies in rem, superseding earlier contrary decisions. (Para 10 , 14 )

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-

1.Heard Shri Kedar Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicants, who are 10 in numbers for the following reliefs:

(i) To issue a suitable order or direction to call for record and direct the respondents to count their services rendered as Reserve Trained Pool for purpose of granting the financial up gradation under time bound one promotion scheme and the modified assured career progression scheme the past service since initial appointment w.e.f. 15.04.1983 for purpose of pension and all other consequential benefits including seniority and pay fixation (DCRG, leave incashment, pay fixation, seniority, revised pension) and same shall be paid 12 % interest on the entire sum from the due date. ;

(ii) to issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to count service since initial appointment for benefit of TBOP after complete of 16 years service and pay in higher scale.

(iii) To issue a suitable order or direction to the respondents to count the service since initial appointment for purpose of benefit of MACP.

(iv) to issue a suitable order or direction to pay the same salary and emoluments per mensem as are being received by postal assistant with effect from the date of their appointment and pay arrears.

(v) to pass such other and further order as this Hon’b le Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(vi)Yo award cost of the O.A. in favour of the applicants.

3. The brief facts as stated in the Original Application is that the applicants participated a selection process during the existence of a Scheme call as Reserve Trained Pool (hereinafter referred as RTP Scheme). The applicants were selected for the post of Reserve Trained Pool Postal Assistant in Ghazipur Division vide different orders. The appointment of the applicants were made as provisional basis and as such, the applicants completed all the required conditions as per Notification dated 13.10.1982 and after verification, they joined as Postal Assistant. The applicants also completed prescribed training and thereafter joined the duties as Postal Assistant. Subsequently, all the applicants were regularized as Postal Assistant on different dates between 1987 to 1989. However, their services as RTP before regularization, have not been counted by the respondents for any service benefits including career progression.

3.1 The applicants were superannuated from services after attaining the age of superannuation on different dates from Ghazipur Division from the post of Postal Assistant and other posts, save and except applicant-10, who is widow of late Prabhu Nath Ram, who died in harness on 20.04.2013, but their initial services as RTP prior to regularization have not been counted for service benefits. Some similarly situated persons approached the various Bench of this Tribunal from time to time and the Tribunal has allowed the claim of similar situated persons in those Original Applications. The applicants also represented before the respondents, but no heed was paid. Hence, this Original Application has been filed.

4. On the other hand, counter reply was filed on 07.10.2025, wherein it has been stated that all the applicants were initially appointed as RTP in Postal Department in between 1983-84. Subsequently, they were regularized in 1987. It is very pertinent to mention here that Department vide letter no. 60/36/80-SPB-II dated 30.10.1980 had introduced RTP scheme for Postal Assistant and Sorting Assistant in Postal and RMS Divisions with a view to ensure smooth flow of work in operative offices, which at times was hampered due to absence and other causes and meeting with staff shortage with overtime arrangement was not found to be a satisfactory solution.

4.1 As per thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6596

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
6025/2024
Original Application No. 823/2020

Services rendered under the Reserve Trained Pool scheme prior to regularization are to be counted for financial benefits, as settled by CAT Principal Bench and affirmed by higher courts, applying to all similarly situated persons.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can service rendered as Reserve Trained Pool prior to regularization be counted for financial benefits under career progression schemes?

5. Must the benefit of a judgment in favor of similarly situated employees be extended to all identically placed persons?

6. Are contrary judgments cited by the respondents valid in light of the binding precedent?

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 6596

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALRajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)6025/2024Original Application No. 823/2020

Services rendered under the Reserve Trained Pool scheme prior to regularization are to be counted for financial benefits, as settled by CAT Principal Bench and affirmed by higher courts, applying to all similarly situated persons.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can service rendered as Reserve Trained Pool prior to regularization be counted for financial benefits under career progression schemes?

5. Must the benefit of a judgment in favor of similarly situated employees be extended to all identically placed persons?

6. Are contrary judgments cited by the respondents valid in light of the binding precedent?

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
6025/2024
Original Application No. 823/2020