Saroj Bala & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) :

In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the core issue in the present Original Application is counting the applicants’ service rendered under the Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) Scheme before their regular appointment in the Department of Posts for all consequential service benefits, including MAMACP and pension.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants had rendered substantial RTP service, but the said period was excluded from their regular service.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that aforesaid issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana in W.P. No.17400/2016, vide judgment dated 27.02.2023, concerning similarly situated RTP employees. The Union of India’s SLP (C) Diary No.1868/2024 was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 05.02.2024.

Learned counsel further submitted that the same principle was thereafter followed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.3466/2019 – Rakesh Pal Singh v. UOI, wherein it was held that non--party status to the original writ petition was not a valid reason to deny the benefit.

Further, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Tribunal in O.A. No.823/2020 – Dheeraj Pal & Ors. v. UOI decided on 29.08.2024 and O.A. No.197/2020 – Naresh Kumar v. UOI decided on 18.09.2024.

Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicants are similarly situated in all respects, yet the

respondents have not extended the benefit to them suo motu, compelling them to approach the Tribunal.

Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the RTP Scheme was only a temporary/contingent arrangement to meet short-term manpower requirements. RTP candidates were engaged on short-duty, hourly wages and outside the notified vacancies, with only a priority for their subsequent regular absorption. The Scheme itself did not contemplate counting RTP service rendered before regular appointment for pension, TBOP, BCR, MACP, seniority, or other service benefits. The Scheme was subsequently abolished w.e.f. 04.03.1986.

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants were later regularly appointed against available vacancies and were granted all admissible service benefits by counting service only from the date of regular appointment. The Department does not have records of the actual days/hours worked under RTP, as the alleged RTP service relates to about 40–42 years ago. Hence, such period cannot be treated as qualifying service for pension, TBOP, BCR, MACP, seniority or consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment dated 01.08.1997 in UOI & Anr. v. K.N. Sivadas, C.A. No.5268/1997, wherein it was held that service rendered by RTP personnel prior to regular appointment cannot be counted as service in the eligible cadre, and RTP employees cannot simultaneously rely upon the special RTP Scheme and claim additional benefits available to another category.

The learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon Jagrit Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (1989 SCR Supl. (2) 329), judgment dated 29.11.1989, submitting that on absorption the RTP employees become regular employees and their ^{claims thereafter are to be regulated in accordance with the extant}Central Administrative Tribunal service rules, without any direction for retrospective benefits.

Learned counsel further submitted that the present OA is hopelessly barred by limitation and suffers from gross delay and laches, since the applicants are seeking to reopen events dating back more than three decades. They never challenged their date of regular appointment or seniority during their long service and accepted the benefits flowing from the existing scheme. The respondents therefore rely upon Rajesh Kumar Singh v. Rajeev Jain Upadhyay, Special Appeal No.819/2019, and the principles of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver.

It is also submitted that the judgments relied upon by the applicants in Dheeraj Pal (OA No.823/2020) and Naresh Kumar (OA No.197/2020) were in personam and cannot automatically be extended to the present applicants. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Bhandari / Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, wherein it is been held that a belated representation does not revive a stale or time-barred cause of action.

The respondents also rely upon U.P. & Ors. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, C.A. No.9849/2014, submitting that employees who remained silent and approached the Court only after similarly situated ^{employees succeeded are liable to be treated as fence-sitters.}Central Administrative Tribunal

Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue has subsequently been considered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in W.P. No.1373/2021 decided on 04.11.2024 as well as by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in a batch of 210 OAs decided on 27.02.2025, where similar claims were rejected.

In the written submissions filed on behalf of the applicants, it is submitted that the RTP Scheme remained in operation from 1982 to

1989 and the regular appointment of the incumbents was delayed due to the Government-imposed ban on recruitment. It is further submitted that the issue regarding counting of RTP service for promotion, financial upgradation and pensionary benefits was considered in V. Ravi Krishna v. Union of India, wherein the claim was allowed by the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal and the decision was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It is further submitted that the order passed by this Tribunal in Rakshpal Singh v. Union of India, O.A. No.3466/2019, dated 20.09.2023, was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.6973/2024, dated 27.05.2024, and the SLP preferred ^{thereafter by the Union of India was also dismissed.}Central Administrative Tribunal

It is submitted that subsequently, this Tribunal in Mukesh Bhardwaj & Ors., O.A. No.3628/2019 vide order dated 04.08.2025, directed the respondents to extend the benefit granted in Rakshpal Singh (supra); the challenge by the Union of India was thereafter dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8825/2026 vide order dated 07.07.2026. The Hon’ble High Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and noted that V. Ravi Krishna (supra) and Rakshpal Singh (supra) had attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

It is further submitted that in Sangeeta Kaushik v. Union of India, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) No.17361/2025, order dated 10.12.2025, held the issue to be covered by Union of India v. Dheeraj Pal & Ors., 2025:DHC:4543-DB, and noted dismissal of the SLP against the Rakshpal Singh judgment. The SLP against Dheeraj Pal (supra) was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.11.2025.

It is further submitted that the Union of India challenged the aforesaid Delhi High Court order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.11546/2026, which was dismissed on 06.04.2026 with costs of ₹25,000/-, the Supreme Court noting that the same issue had already ^{been agitated and the earlier SLPs in}Central Administrative Tribunal ^{Dheeraj Pal (supra) and Rakshpal} Singh (supra) had been dismissed.

It is also submitted that this Tribunal in Dheeraj Pal & Ors., O.A. No.823/2020, order dated 29.08.2024, had directed extension of the Telangana High Court judgment along with MACP and pensionary benefits, and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.7301/2025, order dated 27.05.2025, specifically held that there cannot be a different yardstick for similarly situated employees and that the judgment would apply in rem, requiring extension of the benefit to all similarly situated personnel.

Lastly, reliance is placed upon Purshotam Dass Sharma & Ors., wherein this Tribunal directed extension of the benefit of the Telangana High Court judgment as affirmed by the Supreme Court; the challenge was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P.(C) No.4694/2026, order dated 09.04.2026 (2026 SCC OnLine Del 2464). It is submitted that limitation and arrears were also considered in the various proceedings, and there was no restriction imposed on payment of arrears.

In the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the present Original Application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation, delay and laches. It ^{is contended that the applicants have raised claims relating to RTP}Central Administrative Tribunal service rendered about 35–42 years ago, without any satisfactory explanation for such inordinate delay, and that they never challenged their dates of regular appointment, seniority or service conditions during their long tenure.

It is further submitted that service rendered under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Scheme was only temporary/pre-regularization engagement and was not against a sanctioned cadre post; hence, the same cannot be counted as regular qualifying service for pension, TBOP, BCR, MACP, seniority or other consequential benefits.

It is further submitted that the applicants, having accepted their regular appointment and having enjoyed the consequential service benefits for several decades, are estopped by acquiescence and waiver from seeking retrospective benefits at this belated stage.

Reliance has been further placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. A. Durairaj, Civil Appeal No. 1783/2005, decided on 01.12.2010 to contend that stale claims cannot be revived by subsequent representations or by relying upon orders passed in favour of other employees. It is accordingly submitted that the orders relied upon by the applicants were confined to the respective parties and were not judgments in rem, and that the ^{applicants have no vested right to retrospective counting of RTP service.}Central Administrative Tribunal

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

The controversy in the present Original Application, in substance, is whether the period during which the applicants served under the Reserved Trained Pool (RTP) Scheme prior to their regular appointment can be taken into account for the purpose of consequential service

benefits, including financial upgradation under MACP and pensionary benefits.

It is not in dispute that the applicants were initially engaged under the RTP Scheme and were thereafter absorbed/appointed on a regular basis in the Department of Posts. The respondents, however, contend that the RTP engagement was temporary and contingent and that only service rendered after regular appointment constitutes qualifying service.

At the outset, the objection of limitation, delay and laches raised by the respondents merits consideration. The applicants’ claim undoubtedly relates to a period several decades old, and the applicants had accepted their regular appointment and service benefits for a considerable length Central Administrative Tribunal of time. Ordinarily, a stale claim cannot be revived merely by filing a subsequent representation.

However, the aforesaid objection cannot be examined in isolation from the subsequent judicial developments relating specifically to RTP service in the Department of Posts. The applicants are not seeking reopening of an issue which stands concluded merely on the basis of a fresh representation. Their claim is founded upon a continuing judicial determination concerning the legal consequence of RTP service. The issue was considered in V. Ravi Krishna v. Union of India (supra) and

thereafter in Rakshpal Singh v. Union of India (supra). The latter decision was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.6973/2024, and the challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also unsuccessful.

More importantly, the legal position has subsequently been considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) Nos.7301/2025 and 7412/2025, decided on 27.05.2025, arising out of the decision in Dheeraj Pal & Ors (supra). The Hon’ble High Court expressly held that there cannot be a different yardstick for different members of the same service and that the judgment in that case would apply in rem, observing that the benefit ought to have been extended to ^{all similarly situated personnel.}Central Administrative Tribunal

The aforesaid position has thereafter been consistently reinforced. In Mukesh Bhardwaj & Ors .(supra), this Tribunal vide order dated 04.08.2025 directed extension of the benefit flowing from Rakshpal Singh (supra), and the challenge thereto in W.P.(C) No.8825/2026 was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 07.07.2026, which observed that the issue was no longer res integra and that the decisions in V. Ravi Krishna (supra) and Rakshpal Singh (supra) had attained finality up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Likewise, in Sangeeta Kaushik, W.P.(C) No.17361/2025, decided on 10.12.2025, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi followed the decision in Dheeraj Pal (supra), while noting the dismissal of the SLP against Rakshpal Singh (supra). The challenge thereto by the Union of India in SLP (C) No.11546/2026 was subsequently dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.04.2026 with costs of ₹25,000/-. Further, in Union of India & Ors. v. Sh. Purshotam Dass Sharma & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi declined to interfere with the Tribunal’s order and specifically noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the challenges concerning the same issue.

The respondents’ reliance upon Jagrit Mazdoor UnionandUOI v. ^{K.N. Sivadas}Central Administrative Tribunal^{(supra) cannot be ignored, particularly as those decisions} emphasise the distinction between RTP personnel and regular employees and the relevance of the date of regular absorption. Nevertheless, the subsequent line of decisions rendered by this Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, culminating in the decisions referred to hereinabove, have specifically considered the RTP controversy in the context in which the present applicants claim the benefit.

As regards the present applicants, the respondents themselves do not dispute that they were engaged under the RTP Scheme and were subsequently regularly appointed; their principal defence is that RTP service was temporary and ought not to be counted, coupled with limitation and absence of records of the actual days of engagement. The material placed on record, however, shows that the applicants seek parity with a class of RTP personnel in whose cases the benefit has already been judicially recognized and, in the case of Dheeraj Pal (supra), Rakshpal Singh (supra) and subsequent matters, held to extend to similarly situated personnel.

In these circumstances, we are of the view that the objection of delay and laches, though not without substance, cannot defeat the present claim when the applicants are demonstrably similarly situated to the beneficiaries of the later judgments, which have been held to operate ^{in rem. To deny the same benefit to the present applicants would result}Central Administrative Tribunal in precisely the differential treatment which the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has deprecated.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the impugned communications dated 22.11.2024 and 07.05.2025 cannot be sustained to the extent they deny the applicants the benefit solely on the ground that they were not parties to the earlier proceedings. The respondents are required to reckon the applicants’ RTP service, subject to verification of the individual period of RTP engagement from the available service records, for extending the consequential benefits flowing from the judgments in V. Ravi Krishna (supra), Rakshpal Singh (supra) and Dheeraj Pal (supra), wherever otherwise admissible under the rules. The claim shall, however, remain subject to verification of the actual period of RTP service in each individual case.

As regards arrears, since the benefit is consequential upon revision/re-fixation of the applicants’ service-related entitlements, the respondents shall undertake the consequential re-fixation and release the monetary benefits found due in accordance with the applicable rules, after such verification.

The Original Application is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms.

The respondents shall complete the aforesaid exercise within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

There shall be no order as to costs.