S.N. Gupta & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

“i)

quash and set-aside the communication dated 22.11.2024 (Annexure-A/1);

ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition (C) No. 17400/2016 and also the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 27.05.2025 to the applicants in present OA.

iii) The applicants be declared entitle to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.

iv) pass any further order(s)/direction(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

“ Learned counsels for the parties, at the outset, submit that the issue involved in both the cases is identical, the reliefs sought by them are identical and are based on common grounds. In this background, they submit that both the OAs can be heard together and disposed of by a common order.

2.

We have heard learned counsels for the parties and, with their assistance, have also perused the pleadings available on record. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the captioned OAs are being disposed of by this common order. For convenience of writing the order, OA No. 2072/2026 is taken as the lead case.

3.

The undisputed facts are that the applicants were appointed during the period from 1983 to 1985. They were selected and appointed as Sorting Assistants/Postal Assistants under the respondents during the said period. Their appointments were under the Reserved Training Pool (RTP) Scheme. Subsequently, they were regularized.

4.

The applicants have prayed for regularization to the post under reference from the date of their initial appointment under the RTP Scheme and for parity of pay with those who had been regularly absorbed against such posts. In support of their claim, the applicants contend that while working under the RTP Scheme, the duties discharged by them were the same as those performed and discharged by persons who were not working under the said Scheme.

5.

Such claim of the applicants, as well as of various other identically placed persons, was rejected by the respondents, leading to various litigations before this Tribunal by similarly placed persons, which ultimately travelled up to the Hon’ble Apex Court.

6.

By way of the present OA, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:

“(i)

That this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned orders dated 30.03.2026 (Annex.A/1(colly) declaring to the effect that the same are illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently,

(ii.) pass an order of directing the respondents to count/Regularise the past service of the applicants rendered as Reserved Trained Pool from initial date of Training as regular service for all intent and practical purposes, grant of all the consequential benefits and arrears under all the admissible heads, like preponement of annual increments, preponement of grant of ACP, MACP, Recalculation and release of arrears of Earned Leave Encashment etc by way of extending the benefit of final judgment dated 27-2-2023 of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.17400/2016 and similar Judgements of Hon'ble CAT(PB) New Delhi, Hon'ble Delhi High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court in these cases:-

A. Final Common order dated 27-5-202 passed By Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 7301/2025 and WP(C) No. 7412/2025,

B. Final order dated 10-12-2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court In SLP(C) No. 29726/2024,

C. Final order dated 16-12-2024 passed by Hon'ble CAT(PB) New Delhi In OA No. 2569/2019 and 2634/2019

D. Final order dated18-9-2024 Passed By Hon'ble CAT(PB) in OA no. 197/2020

E. Final order dated 18-9-2024 passed by Hon'ble CAT(PB) New Delhi in OA No. 197/2020 (Naresh Kumar Vs UOI And Ors.)

F. Final order dated 5-1-2026 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Diary No. 59384/2025) titled as UOIand Ors Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors,

G. Final order dated 6-4-2026 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI and Ors Vs Sangeeta Kaushik, to the applicants in present OA,

(iii)

The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable

(ii)

Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation.”

7.

In the case of the applicants herein, the claim of the applicants has been rejected by the respondents vide the impugned orders, wherein it has been stated that, while implementing the common order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in W.P. Nos. 17400/2016 and 17425/2016, it has clearly been mentioned that implementation of the said order shall be restricted only to the applicants mentioned in OA Nos. 779/2013 and 780/2013 and that the same should not be treated as a precedent in other cases.

9.

In the impugned orders, it has further been stated by the respondents that the Postal Directorate, vide its letter dated 20.06.2025, had informed that on 27.02.2025, the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal had dismissed 250 OAs filed by RTP personnel claiming counting of RTP service for service benefits. It is also stated therein that, in view of the aforesaid facts and the decisions communicated by the Postal Directorate, as well as the judgments of the Hon’ble Courts, the benefit sought by the applicants for counting of their service under the RTP Scheme for the purposes of seniority/increment, MACP, etc. and other such benefits is not admissible under the existing rules and instructions of the Department.

10.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the issue has been decided not only by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the writ petitions referred to by the respondents in the impugned orders, but also by various Benches of this Tribunal, including this Bench, and such judgments of the Tribunal have further been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and, thereafter, by the Hon’ble Apex Court. He submits that, while dismissing one such SLP, the Hon’ble Apex Court imposed costs of ₹25,000/- upon the respondent Department. He submits that this fact, as well as the various judgments rendered on the issue, was taken into consideration by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while dismissing W.P.(C) No. 8825/2026, titled Union of India vs. Mukesh Bhardwaj vide order/judgment dated 07.07.2026.

11.

Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, by common order/judgment dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure A-4) in W.P.(C) No. 7301/2025, titled Union of India vs. Dheeraj Pal & Ors., along with another Writ Petition involving the same issue, not only dismissed the said writ petitions but also held that the judgments rendered therein could operate in rem and, therefore, the benefit ought to have been extended by the petitioners therein to all similarly placed persons. He further submits that when such common order/judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of SLPs, the same were dismissed on 14.11.2025 and 05.01.2026.

12.

Despite the aforesaid position of law declared by the Hon’ble High Court, when the respondents challenged the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 3628/2019 (Supra) and other connected matters before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 8825/2026, the Hon’ble High Court, taking note of various judgments on the issue, dismissed the said Writ Petition vide order/judgment dated 07.07.2026. Despite the aforesaid, the respondents have filed their counter reply on 13.08.2026. Referring to the assertions made in the counter reply, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicants. She submits that the present OA is barred by limitation, inasmuch as the cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the applicants around 40 years ago. She has further argued that the identical issue has already been considered and rejected by the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 07.12.2023 in OA No. 260/00534/2019, titled Beenaya Kumar Pradhan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Others. The said order/judgment was further relied upon by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal while dismissing OA No. 27/2018 & Batch on the identical issue. She further submits that, in support of their defence, the respondents have also annexed copies of the judgments/orders passed by the Cuttack Bench as well as the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal.

13.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the judgments referred to and relied upon by learned counsel for the parties and specifically noted hereinabove pertain to the issue involved in the present OAs. It is also not in dispute that the judgments of the Cuttack Bench and/or Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents are also on the same issue. The common order/judgment dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 7301/2025 (Supra) and one another read as under:

“2.

These petitions have been filed challenging the Order(s) dated 29.08.2024 and 18.09.2024 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.823/2020 and OA No.197/2020, respectively, which allowed the OA(s) filed by the respondent(s), by quashing the orders impugned therein and passing the following pari materia directions:

"...(ii) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 17400/2016 to the applicants in present OA. (iii) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.

(iv)

The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order."

3.

Apart from challenging the Order(s) of the learned Tribunal on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the OA(s) filed by the respondents before the learned Tribunal were highly belated and should have been dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

4.

He submits that though this Court in WP(C) no.6973/2024, titled Union of India & Ors. v. Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. vide its Judgment dated 27.05.2024, has dismissed a similar challenge on merits, and a Special Leave Petition thereagainst has also been dismissed vide Order dated 10.12.2024 passed in SLP(C) 29726/2024, in another case, that is, in SLP(C) Diary No. 1868/2024, titled Union of India and Ors. v. Ravi Krishna and Ors, the Supreme Court while dismissing the petition, has left the question of law open.

5.

Further, placing reliance on the Judgment dated 04.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WP(C) no.1373/2021 titled UOI & Ors. v. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal & Anr., he submits that a similar challenge on merits has been allowed by the High Court and the orders passed in the OA(s) has also been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

6.

We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

7.

As far as the challenge on merits is concerned, this Court by its Judgment in Raksh Pal Singh (supra), has already dismissed a similar challenge of the petitioners. Furthermore, and as noted hereinabove, the Special Leave Petition thereagainst has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court. Being a Bench of co-ordinate strength, we are bound by the Judgment.

8.

On the question of delay and laches, we again find no merit in the petition.

9.

This Court in Raksh Pal Singh (supra), was considering the OA(s) filed by the respondents therein in the year 2020, wherein the learned Tribunal, placing reliance on an Order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in W.P.(C) 17400/2016, against which SLP(C) Diary No. 1868/2024 was dismissed keeping the question of law open, held that the respondents therein would be entitled to have their services, rendered as Reserve Trained Pool from 1983 to 1985, counted for the purpose calculation of financial benefits. This Court upheld the learned Tribunal's decision, noting that other similarly situated individuals had already been granted such benefits for their service in the Reserve Trained Pool, and there was no justification for denying the same to the respondents.

“1.

The respondents were selected and appointed as Sorting Assistant under the Department of Posts between 1982 and 1984. They discharged their duties as Sorting Assistant under the Reserve Trained Pool Scheme'. They sought regularisation as Sorting Assistant from the date of their initial appointment and parity of pay with those who have been regularly absorbed as Sorting Assistant. It was pointed out that the work they performed, and the duties they discharged. while functioning under the RTP Scheme, was the same as the work performed and duties discharged by others who were not working under the Scheme.

2.

Aggrieved by the fact that their request were not granted, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 3628/2019.

3.

By judgment dated 4 August 2025, the Tribunal has allowed the OA, following the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in WP 17400/2016³ as well as the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in Raksh Pal Singh v. Union of India and Union of India v. Dheeraj Pal.

4.

The Tribunal has also relied on the well settled principle that a judgment allowing a writ petition should be applied equally to those who were placed similarly to the petitioners, even if they had not individually approached the Court.

5.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the Union of India has preferred the present writ petition.

6.

Having heard Ms. Pragya Priya, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents, we express our undisguised unhappiness at the fact that an issue which stands settled up to the Supreme Court, and in respect of which the Supreme Court has earlier expressed its disapproval at the issue being raked up again and again, has once again been agitated in the present writ petition.

7.

We do not deem it necessary to burden this judgment with any detailed discussion, as the issue is not res integra. Suffice it to state that, the High Court of Telangana, in its judgment in Ravi Krishna, clearly held that the service rendered by Sorting Assistant under the RTP Scheme was entitled to be counted for the purposes of promotion, seniority and all other benefits.

8.

A similar view, adopted by the Tribunal in Raksh Pal Singh, was subsequently upheld by this Court in the writ petition filed thereagainst, and SLP preferred against the judgment of this Court also stands dismissed by the Supreme Court.

9.

The decisions in Ravi Krishna and Raksh Pal Singh have, therefore, attained finality upto the Supreme Court. The respondents have also implemented the said decision in favour of the petitioners in those cases.

10.

Raksh Pal Singh was further followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Dheeraj Pal.

11.

These decisions were followed by this Court, even more recently, in Union of India v. Purshotam Dass Sharma, in which we inter alia noted that when the same issue was sought to be raked up again before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sangeeta Kaushik, the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the Union of India with costs of 25,000/-.

12.

This case is fully covered by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Purushotam Dass Sharma. We reiterate our unhappiness at the fact that, even after the Supreme Court deprecated this issue being brought again and again to Court and in fact awarded costs of ₹25,000/-, the same issue is again being agitated.

13.

As we are dismissing the writ petition on the very first date, we refrain from awarding costs. However, we make it clear that we may not be so lenient on the next occasion, if there is any.

14.

The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.”