Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Ramesh B Gautami vs Department Of Posts on 17 October, 2025
::1 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BECH
Original Application Nos. 105/2025, 68/2024, 60/2017, 134/2019,
135/2019, 147/2019, 148/2019, 159/2019, 256/2020, 264/2020, 454/2020,
512/2020, 64/2021, 98/2021, 125/2021, 126/2021, 161/2021, 186/2021,
187/2021, 447/2021, 08/2024, 09/2024, 12/2024, 13/2024, 64/2024,
65/2024, 66/2024, 67/2024, 95/2024, , 103/2024, 119/2024, 134/2024,
137/2024, 138/2024, 139/2024, 11/2025, 70/2025, 71/2025, 72/2025,
73/2025, 74/2025, 75/2025, 76/2025, 77/2025, 78/2025, 79/2025,
80/2025, 81/2025, 82/2025, 83/2025, 84/2025, 85/2025, 86/2025,
87/2025, 88/2025, 89/2025, 90/2025, 91/2025, 92/2025, 93/2025,
94/2025, 95/2025, 96/2025, 97/2025, 98/2025, 99/2025, 100/2025,
101/2025, 102/2025, 103/2025, 104/2025, 106/2025, 107/2025, 108/2025,
109/2025, 110/2025, 111/2025, 112/2025, 113/2025, 114/2025, 115/2025,
116/2025, 117/2025, 118/2025, 119/2025, 120/2025, 121/2025, 122/2025,
152/2025, 187/2025, 188/2025, 189/2025, 190/2025, 270/2025, 271/2025,
279/2025, 373/2025, 374/2025.
Dated this the day, October, 2025.
Reserved on: 30.09.2025
Pronounced on: .10.2025
CORAM:
Hon‟ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon‟ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. OA No.105/2025 with MA No.104/2025
Naranbhai A Gohel............................... Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. Vilas Purani)
2. OA No. 68/2024
Ravina MansinghBhai Christian, ................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew & Mr. Vinod R Shah)
2025.11.04
P ANUKUMA
16:52:32+05'30'
::2 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
3. OA No.60/2017
Shri Parmar Hasmukhbhal K. ............................ Applicant
( By Advocate : Ms. S.S.Chaturvedi )
4. OA No.134/ 2019
Smt. Shilaben Amrutlal Kothari........................... Applicant
5. OA No.135/2019
Shri Ramsinh Mohanbhai Parmar.......................... Applicant
6. OA No.147/2019
Shri Maheshkumar Vadilal Parekh.......................... Applicant
7. OA No.148/2019
Shri Abdulkadar Abdulgani Mansuri...................... Applicant
8. OA No.159/2019
Smt. Shobhanaben Nandkishor Patel ...................... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr.A.D.Vankar for Sr. No. 4 to 8)
Versus
Union of India & Ors.........................................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 1 to 8)
9. O.A. No. 256/2020
Jagdishchandra. D Patel, ..................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew)
10. OA No. 264/2020
Sudhirkumar Miltonbhai Sioni, .......................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew and Mr. Vinod R Shah)
::3 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
11. OA No. 454/2020
Chhayabe A Prajapati....................................Applicant
12. OA No.512/2020
Shri Bhupatbhai L. Parmar .......................... Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. S.S.Chaturvedi for Sr. No. 11 & 12)
Versus
Union of India & Ors.................................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 09 to 12)
13. OA No. 64/2021
D.D. Trivedi, ......................................... Applicant
14. OA No. 98/2021
Munira M. Kazi.......................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew
& Mr. Vinod R Shah for Sr. No. 13 & 14)
Versus
Union of India & Ors.........................................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 13 to 14)
15. OA No. 125/2021
Bhavesh S. Vaidya ......................................... Applicant
16. O.A. No. 126/2021
Gopalbhai D. Prajapati....................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew
and Mr. Vinod R Shah for Sr. No. 15 & 16)
::4 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
17. O.A. No. 161/2021
Dashrath A. Prajapati, ................................ Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew)
18. OA No.186/2021 with MA No.204/2021
Jayeshkumar K. Shah.......................................... Applicant
19. OA No.187/2021 with MA No.205/2021
Yogeshkumar D Pandya..................................... Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. Vilas Purani for Sr. No. 18 & 19)
Versus
Union of India & Ors........................................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 15 to 19)
20. OA No.447/2021
Shri Mohammad Hanif G. Shaikh...................... Applicant
( By Advocate : Ms. S.S.Chaturvedi )
21. O.A. No. 08/2024
Mahesh Chauhan, ....................................... Applicant
22. O.A. No. 09/2024
Evenjlina Christian, ................................... Applicant
23. OA No. 12/2024
Prafulkumar Makwana, ............................ Applicant
24. O.A. No. 13/2024
Dinesh Kalma, ......................................... Applicant
25. O.A. No. 64/2024
Rajendra Pandya, ...................................... Applicant
::5 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
26. OA No. 65/2024
Devikaben Himatlal Makwana, ..................... Applicant
27. O.A. No. 66/2024
Janardan Karmakar, ................................ Applicant
28. OA No. 67/2024
Sunil M Christian, ........................................ Applicant
29. OA No. 95/2024
Chinubhai Patel, ....................................... Applicant
30. OA No. 103/2024
Lalsing Kamji Katara, ................................. Applicant
31. O.A. No. 119/2024
Indiraben Gor, ........................................... Applicant
32. O.A. No. 134/2024
Bipinbhai Parmar, .................................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew and
Mr. Vinod R Shah for Sr. No. 21 to 32)
33. OA No.137/2024
Smt. Ragini Dipakbhai Desai...................... Applicant
34. OA No.138/2024
Shri Rajendrabhai Paragbhai Patel ......... ..... Applicant
35. OA No.139/2024
Smt. Sarojben Jayraj Kansara................................ Applicant
( By Advocate : Mr. A.D.Vankar for Sr. No. 33 to 35 )
36. O.A. No. 11/2025
::6 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
Babulal Maheria, .......................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew and Mr. Vinod R Shah)
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 20 to 36)
37. OA No.70/2025 with MA No.69/2025
Anil Solanki........................................ Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 37)
38. OA No.71/2025 with MA No.70/2025
Harish D Thanki.................................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 38)
39. OA No.72/2025 with MA No.71/2025
Aruna Savani...................................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 39)
40. OA No.73/2025 with MA No.72/2025
Kalpanaben M. Vadodariya........................ Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 40)
::7 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
41. OA No.74/2025 with MA No.73/2025
Suresh C Gajera.................................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 41)
42. OA No.75/2025 with MA No.74/2025
Danabhai Garchar......................................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 42)
43. OA No.76/2025 with MA No.75/2025
Chetana H. Vasavada............................ Applicant
44. OA No.77/2025 with MA No.76/2025
Lilavanti Desai................................... Applicant
45. OA No.78/2025 with MA No.77/2025
Bharatkumar Upadhya............................ Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 43 to 45)
46. OA No.79/2025 with MA No.78/2025
Nirmala Cholera................................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 46)
::8 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
47. OA No.80/2025 with MA No.79/2025
Nilaben R. Rami ................................. Applicants
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 47)
48. OA No.81/2025 with MA No.80/2025
Haresh A Machchhar.................................. Applicant
49. OA No.82/2025 with MA No.81/2025
Ganga D Kadchha.................................... Applicant
50. OA No.83/2025 with MA No.82/2025
Gitaben Parmar................................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 48 to 50)
51. OA No.84/2025 with MA No.83/2025
Ashokkumar B Bhatt.......................... Applicant
52. OA No.85/2025 with MA No.84/2025
Amitkumar Patel............................... Applicant
53. OA No.86/2025 with MA No.85/2025
Bharatkumar N. Chauhan.......................... Applicant
54. OA No.87/2025 with MA No.86/2025
Bhanumati H. Makwana .......................... Applicant
55. OA No.88/2025 with MA No.87/2025
Ramnikbhai G Khunt.......................... Applicant
::9 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
56. OA No.89/2025 with MA No.88/2025
Jayshree J Makhecha.......................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. 51 No. 56)
57. OA No.90/2025 with MA No.89/2025
Ramaben V Hirpara .......................... Applicant
58. OA No.91/2025 with MA No.90/2025
Archana Purohit ................................. Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 57 & 58)
59. OA No.92/2025 with MA No.91/2025
Hardevsingh J. Rayjada.......................... Applicant
60. OA No.93/2025 with MA No.92/2025
Jyotiben Gajjar................................... Applicant
61. OA No.94/2025 with MA No.93/2025
Sharda D Keswani............................... Applicant
62. OA No.95/2025 with MA No.94/2025
Aliraza H Bhojani............................... Applicant
63. OA No.96/2025 with MA No.95/2025
Jagdish M Shah................................ Applicant
64. OA No.97/2025 with MA No.96/2025
Hajabhai V. Khambhala.......................... Applicant
::10 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
65. OA No.98/2025 with MA No.97/2025
Tarunbhai R Kondhiya.......................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 59 to 65)
66. OA No.99/2025 with MA No.98/2025
Aruna H Mandir................................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No.66)
67. OA No.100/2025 with MA No.99/2025
Harsukhbhai B Ranpariya............ ..... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 67)
68. OA No.101/2025 with MA No.100/2025
Rajesh B Bhatt.............................. .. Applicant
69. OA No.102/2025 with MA No.101/2025
Nanalal N. Vaghela............................ Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 68& 69)
70. OA No.103/2025 with MA No.102/2025
::11 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
Kamlesh A Patel................................ Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 70)
71. OA No.104/2025 with MA No.103/2025
Meena G. Joshi............................ Applicant
72. OA No.106/2025 with MA No.105/2025
Kanabhai Dangar.......................... Applicant
73. OA No.107/2025 with MA No.106/2025
Chhagangar R. Meghnathi.................. Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 71 to 73)
74. OA No.108/2025 with MA No.107/2025
Bharatbhai P. Mehta............................ Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 74)
75. OA No.109/2025 with MA No.108/2025
Prabhaben M Kalavadia.......................... Applicant
76. OA No.110/2025 with MA No.109/2025
Pragnaben M. Parikh.......................... Applicant
77. OA No.111/2025 with MA No.110/2025
Rajeshkumar Trivedi.......................... Applicant
::12 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
78. OA No.112/2025 with MA No.111/2025
Sudabhai D. Mushal.......................... Applicant
79. OA No.113/2025 with MA No.112/2025
Vijya R. Bhatt................................ Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 75 to 79)
80. OA No.114/2025 with MA No.113/2025
Sarmanbhai R. Chavda.......................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 80)
81. OA No.115/2025 with MA No.114/2025
Shaliniben M Desia.......................... Applicant
82. OA No.116/2025 with MA No.115/2025
Late Pradeepkumar Parmar joined through widow Pravinaben
Parmar.......................... Applicant
83. OA No.117/2025 with MA No.116/2025
Smt. Paras Pathak................................ Applicant
84. OA No.118/2025 with MA No.117/2025
Pravinchandra D Bhalodia.......................... Applicant
85. OA No.119/2025 with MA No.118/2025
Ramesh B Gautami.......................... Applicant
Versus
::13 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
Union of India & Ors............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 81 to 85)
86. OA No.120/2025 with MA No.119/2025
Naranbhai K Chavda............................. Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 86)
87. OA No.121/2025 with MA No.120/2025
Nareshkumar R Waghela...................... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No. 87)
88. OA No.122/2025 with MA No.121/2025
Bharatiben A Tanna.......................... Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. Vilas Purani for Sr. No. 37 to 88)
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No. 88)
89. OA No. 152/2025
Shri Yusufbhai M Vahora, .......................... Applicant
90. O.A. No. 187/2025
Rajesh Jayantilal Shah, ....................... Applicant
91. O.A. No. 188/2025
Falguni Patel, ..................................... Applicant
::14 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
92. O.A. No. 189/2025
Raxaben Mashar, ............................. Applicant
93. OA No. 190/2025
Saudamini Shah, ............................. Applicant
94. O.A. No. 270/2025
Yogesh T Dave, ................................. Applicant
95. OA No. 271/2025
Mahendra Panchal, .......................... Applicant
96. OA No. 279/2025
Mayurkumar Shukla, .......................... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Joy Mathew &
Mr. Vinod R Shah for Sr. No. 90 to 97)
Versus
Union of India & Ors............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R R Patel for Sr. No.89 to 96)
97. OA No.373/2025
Navinbhai P. Pandya & Ors.......................... Applicants
98. OA No.374/2025
H.D.Desai & Ors..........................................Applicants
( By Advocate : M.J.Patel for Sr. No. 97 & 98 )
Versus
Union of India & Ors...............................Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. H D Shukla for Sr. No.97 & 98)
::15 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
ORDER
Per : Hon‟ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. By way of the above mentioned OAs, applicants inter-alia, have prayed for a direction against the respondents to count the services rendered by them as Reserved Training Pool (herein after referred as „RTP‟) as qualifying service for granting all the consequential benefits including the benefits like Seniority, promotion, financial upgradation under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP), ACP/BCR and Modified Assured Career Programme Scheme (MACPs).
2. Since, the question of facts & law as well the prayer sought by the applicants are common in nature in all the OAs, therefore, the present group of OAs are being disposed of together with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. For the sake of convenience, OA No. 68/2024 and OA No. 105/2025 has been taken up as lead case.
4. Mr. Joy Mathew, learned counsel for the applicants by referring the pleadings and written notes of submission in OA No. 68/2024 mainly argued as under: -
4.1 The applicants were selected and appointed by the Postal Department as „Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant‟ under the Reserved Training Pool. After completion of theoretical training of 2½ months, they were ordered to undergo practical training. After the completion of said training they were appointed on regular basis under the RTP Scheme. Accordingly, the applicants were regularly engaged by the respondents on one post or another equivalent to the post of Postal Assistant in one office or another. However, the department treated them as „RTP‟ and paid salary on hourly basis at the relevant time.
::16 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters The department had given assurance to all these RTPs for regularization against future vacancies.
4.2 While the applicants were rendering their service as per the RTP scheme, the various Unions have taken up their case for early regularization with the respondent department. With the intervention of the court, the department abandoned the RTP scheme and stopped the new/fresh recruitment of Sorting Assistant/Posting Assistant as RTP. Meanwhile, the Central Government imposed a ban on the recruitment and this was continued for a long period of time. As a result, during this period, no RTP employee engaged earlier got a permanent posting as assured by the respondent department.
4.3 The union had also taken up case for granting two promotions to each existing employees under RTP during their service career. In the meantime, the respondent introduced Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP) for basic operative Group - „C‟ and „D‟ after completion of 16 years of satisfactory service and implemented the same vide memo dated 17.12.1983. The demand of second promotion was considered. Subsequently, under Biennial Cadre Review (i.e., BCR) under which the incumbents of existing post were placed to next higher scale of pay on completion of 26 years of service, not only for providing promotion to the staff concerned but also on the basis of functional justification.
However, the applicants who were appointed under RTP scheme were not allowed for benefit of TBOP/BCR scheme. The period spent under training and length of service as RTP of the applicant was not counted for granting promotion under TBOP/BCR scheme though they were performing the same duty which was carried out by previously employed officials.
4.4 Since, the employees working under the RTP scheme have not been granted the benefit of financial upgradation and regularization, being aggrieved the All India Postal Employee‟s Union had filed an OA, ::17 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters which was decided by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal vide judgment dated 16th December, 1986 (i.e., TA No. 82/1986, All India Postal Employees Union Vs Union of India through Secretary, Postal Department & Ors.), in the said order the Jabalpur Bench while deprecating the stoppage of further recruitment and absorption for the cadre of post of Postal Assistants, had issued various directions to review such policy as also directed the respondents to absorb the RTP employee against regular post in phase manner in terms of circular dated 30.10.1980 as if no restriction has been imposed on their regular recruitment/absorption earlier, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts, and subject to screening of the unfit by specially constituted Screening Committee to examine their record and performance as also by keeping in view the seniority of the said RTP employees.
Further, it was also directed that RTP employees performing the same duties as Postal Assistants shall be paid the same salary and emoluments per mensem as are being received by Postal Assistance with effect from their date of appointment.
The aforesaid order passed by the Jabalpur Bench was challenged before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No. 11313/1987.
4.5 The applicants as such appointed as Postal Assistance/Sorting Assistance but treated as short duty staff under RTP scheme. They were not allowed the benefit of TBOP/BCR Scheme. The period spent under training as length of service was not counted under TBOP/BCR scheme. Inspite of the fact that they were performing same duty which was carried out by previously employed officials. The applicants though had demanded the equal treatment to grant the benefit of TBOP/BCR scheme by counting the periods spent by them under training has not been considered by the respondents. However, subsequently the applicants were offered temporary appointment in regular establishment.
::18 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters 4.6 Thereafter, in the year 1997-98, the respondents had granted the benefit of TBOP scheme to some of the applicants. On 03.08.2000 the Director issued a letter that the period of induction training will also be counted for the benefit of TBOP/BCR scheme. Accordingly, the Department of Post vide OM dated 05.05.2016, informed all Chief Post Master General/Postmaster General to take action for regularization of the period of induction training of Postal Assistance/Sorting Assistance (Direct Recruits) working in operative offices, undergone prior to 1986 for the purpose of qualifying service under TBOP/BCR scheme, as a one-time measure. Accordingly, some of the applicants submitted their representation at the relevant time and claimed the benefit of grant of TBOP/BCR scheme. Thereafter, the respondents have also issued clarification in respect to counting of induction training period for grant of financial upgradation under TBOP/BCR scheme vide circular dated 07th January/February, 2018. Therein it was clarified that the RTP scheme was introduced in the year 1980 and the same was a mode of filling up DR vacancies of PA/SAs. Training period of such RTP official undertaken prior to 1986 may be counted for the purpose of TBOP/BCR scheme irrespective of their date of entry in service before or after of 1986.
4.7 It is stated that the Department of Pension and Pensioners‟ Welfare vide OM dated 02.10.2022 directed all Ministries/Departments that training period undertaken by the persons taking charge of post formally for which they have selected is to be counted as qualifying service for grant of benefit of increment, pension and gratuity etc. 4.8 Learned counsel for the applicants would vehemently argue that the issues involved in this group of OAs about counting of training period spend by the RTP employees for the purpose of grant of benefit of financial upgradation, promotion, MACPs and fixation of pension accordingly is now no more an undecided issue.
::19 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters In this regard, it is stated that the various Bench of this Tribunal as well the Hon‟ble High Courts consistently held that the extension of benefit of financial upgradation/TBOP/ACP/MACP and the consequential pensionary benefits is required to be granted to the employees engaged under the RTP scheme except some of the contrary order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court. However, since the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has dismissed more than 4 SLPs filed by the respondents challenging orders passed by the various Hon‟ble High Courts and the issue as such settled long back, the said dicta laid down by the Hon‟ble High Courts which has been upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is binding to all the judicial forums including this Tribunal as well on the issue involved in this group of OAs.
4.9 Learned counsel further submitted that various Benches of this Tribunal, Hon‟ble High Courts held that the benefit of the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana, at Hyderabad at WP No. 17400/2016 is required to be extended to the RTP employees and they are also entitled for all consequential benefits flowing there from including upgradation under MACP scheme, pensionary benefits as applicable. In this regard, further it is submitted that the SLP filed by the original respondents was also came to be dismissed. Thus, the direction issued by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal as well as various High Courts attained finality.
4.10 The learned counsel for the applicants by relying upon the following orders/judgments passed by various Tribunals, High Courts and the Hon‟ble Apex Court would further argued as under:
a) Order passed by CAT, Hydrabad Bench in OA Nos. 779 of 2013 and 780/2013 dated 15.4.2015, (K. Manohara & Ors Vs. UoI represented through its Secretary, Department of Posts & Ors).
::20 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the aforesaid order, the coordinate Bench of CAT, Hyderabad by relying upon the judgment and order dated 16.12.1986 passed by the Coordinate Bench of CAT, Jabalpur in TA No. 82/1986, and by taking into consideration the order of dismissal of SLP No.11313/1987 thereon, while quashing and setting aside the impugned order held that "....the applicants are entitled to be accommodated against the regular vacancies which arose in the next recruiting half year subsequent to their selection as Reserved Trained Pool Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant" and further directed the respondents "....to regularize and count the service rendered as Reserved Trained Pool by the applicants therein with all consequential benefits as was implemented in the case of RTP employees".
b) It is stated that the aforesaid order has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana vide common judgment dated 27.02.2023 in WP No. 17400 and 17425 of 2016.
c) Thereafter, the SLP (Diary) No. 1868 of 2024 filed by the Department of Posts has been dismissed by Hon‟ble Apex Court on 05.02.2024, leaving question of law open.
Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants would also argue that the question of law which has been kept open can be reconsidered only by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court at a later stage and till then the judgment/order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court holds the field.
::21 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters In support of the said submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Tax Appeal No. 380 of 2013 and MCA No. 1412 of 2015 in SCA No. 4353 of 2008, and submittted that the said issue has been settled vide this judgment.
(d) Order passed by CAT, Madras Bench in MA 708/2018 in OA No. 1734 of 2018, dated 28.3.2019 (D. Murugesan & Ors. Vs UoI & Ors.)
(e) Common order passed by CAT, Bombay Bench, camp at Nagpur in Group of 9 OAs i.e., OA No. 719/1996 (Sanjay Sumantharao Sathe & Ors. Vs UoI & Ors) and other OA Nos. 720/1996 to 727/1996 dated 31.8.2010.
(f) Order passed by CAT, Principal Bench, in the case of Rakshpal Singh Vs Union of India New Delhi in OA No. 3466/2019.
The said order has been upheld by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide Judgment dated 27.5.2024 in WP 6973 of 2024 (UoI Vs Rakshpal Singh).
Further, while upholding the judgment dated 27.05.2024, passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi, the Hon‟ble Apex Court vide order dated 10.12.2024 dismissed SLP (C) No. 29726/2024 in the case of (UoI Vs Rakshpal Singh).
Thus, the judgment/order dated 27.05.2025 passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi has attained finality and the same holds the field as on date.
(g) By referring the judgment passed by the High Court of Telangana and the order passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No. 1868/2023 dated 05.02.2024 as also the submission of department about delay and ::22 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters laches as well the judgment passed in the case of UOI & Ors. Vs. K N Shivdas & Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, in WPS No. 1912 of 2021 (Vinay Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs UOI through its Secretary, Department of Posts) vide Judgment dated 3.10.2024 while quashing and setting aside the impugned order therein (i.e., order dated 02.05.2019 in OA No. 203/959/2013 passed by the CAT, Jabalpur Bench) had directed the respondents to extend the benefit to the petitioners therein in terms of the decision of the High Court of Telangana and also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefit including MACPs and Pension, which shall be fixed accordingly wherever applicable.
(h) Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Chattisgarh, the Department of Posts had filed SLP (Civil) Diary No (s). 35662/2025 (Union of India & Ors. Vs Vijay Kumar Upadhyay) was dismissed by 3 judges Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.08.2025 by observing in para 2 held that "we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and the order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
The aforesaid three (3) judges Bench order passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court hold the field as on date.
(i) By referring the common judgment/order dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India Vs Dheeraj Pal & Ors. [WP (C) No. 7301/2025 and WP (C) 7412 /2025 (Union of India Vs Naresh Kumar & Ors.)], the CAT, Principal ::23 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters Bench vide its common order dated 23.07.2025 also allowed the identical group of OAs (i.e., OA Nos. 4477/2024 and other cognate OAs).
The SLP being Diary No. 51581/2025 against the said common judgment dated 27.05.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 7301/2025 was filed by the respondents on 09.09.2025 and same is pending till date without any order of notice etc. Therefore, the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi is still in force.
(j) The Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in group of petitions i.e., OP (CAT) No. 189 of 2018 (UoI & Ors. Vs Valsa O. J & Ors.) & Other connected petitions while upholding the order passed by CAT, Ernakulam Bench vide common judgment dated 05.02.2025 held that "we are of the view that it would be totally a farcical exercise in deliberating the issue on merits of the matter when the Headquarters have already implemented the order in later and spirit to grant the benefit to all such persons who have been affected by the action of the petitioner in not considering the Reserved Trained Pool period for the purpose of TBOP absorption. In this view of the matter, we do not find illegality and perversity. All the OP (CAT)s stand dismissed."
(k) CAT Allahabad Bench in the matter of Shiv Bhawan Mishra & Ors Vs UoI & Ors. in OA No. 289 of 2021 vide order dated 5.2.2025 by referring various orders passed by the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal has allowed the OA and respondents were directed to count the past service of the applicant towards RTP w.e.f.
::24 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters March, 1983 for the purposes of pensionary benefits including pension.
(l) The CAT, Principal Bench in OA No. 2758/2015 (Bhagwan Singh Chahar & Ors. Vs the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Communication & IT & Ors.), by referring the various coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, judgments passed by the Hon‟ble High Courts and Hon‟ble Apex Court as also by taking into consideration the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in identical OA i.e., OA No. 3644/2019, in the case of Rakshpal Singh & Ors. Vs UoI, the CAT, Principal Bench vide order dated 30.1.2025, allowed the OA and directed the respondents to extend the benefits of RTP period to the applicants therein.
(m) Identical order has been passed by CAT, Principal Bench on 29.8.2024 in OA No. 823 of 2020 (Shri Dheeraj Pal & Ors. Vs Secretary, Department of Posts & Ors).
(n) The aforesaid order passed by CAT, Principal Bench has been upheld vide Judgment dated 27.5.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP 7301 of 2025 and other allied matters.
The SLP Diary No. 51581 of 2025 filed by the Department of Posts against the aforesaid judgment is pending for listing before the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
(o) CAT, Principal Bench vide order dated 4.8.2025 in OA No. 3628 of 2019 disposed of the identical OA by referring the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 27.05.2025 and the order of dismissal of SLP thereon by the Hon‟ble Apex Court dated 10.12.2024 ::25 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
(p) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench in WP No. 200216 of 2021 (Union of India & Ors Vs Gurunath Akkanna & Ors.) vide order dated 08.07.2021 dismissed the said petition filed by the Department of Posts and confirmed the direction issued by CAT Banglore Bench in respect to grant of benefit of RTP period to the applicants therein.
(q) CAT Banglore Bench, Bengaluru, in OA No. 1559-1564 of 2018 (Prakash Rao & Ors. Vs UoI & Ors.) vide order dated 10.12.2019, had allowed the OA and directed the respondents to treat the applicants equally to grant the benefit of RTP period for financial upgradation etc.
(r) CAT Benglore Bench, in identical OAs being OA No. 104/2024 and 111/2024 vide common order dated 30.07.2025, disposed of the OAs with direction to the respondents to extend the benefits under MACPs scheme to the applicants therein considering their service rendered as Reserved Trained Pool as Sorting Assistant/Postal Assistant subject to result of pending Review Petition No. 200001/2022 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburgi Bench.
4.11 Further, by referring the common order/judgment dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangan at Hyderabad in 17400/2016 and WP No. 17425/2016, decided on 01.05.2024 would argue that the order passed by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench in OA No. 779/2013 and 780/2013 has been upheld and the respondents were directed to implement the order passed by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench only for the applicants in the OA No. 779/2013 & other connected matters and same should not be treated as precedent in other cases. On dismissal of Writ Petition and the SLP filed by the respondents, the order passed in OA was complied with by the department.
::26 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the respondents department has created two sets of employees, namely, one set was granted the benefit of RTP and others were denied the same. Department being a model employer is not expected to act arbitrarily and discriminatorily.
4.12 Learned counsel by relying upon the dicta laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] and the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation [(2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 144] would argue that it is the case of the applicants that non granting of benefit of upgradation is continuing cause of action and therefore, there is no delay. The applicants had submitted their representation and in the case of some of the cases, the respondents had not considered the said representation and in some of the cases, it was considered and regretted on a ground that the order/judgment passed by the Tribunal/High Court and the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the point of grant of benefit of RTP employees are not required to be treated as passed in rem. Moreover, some of the applicants were granted benefit of the TBOP etc. and some of the applicants were not granted the benefit of financial upgradation.
It is submitted that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Tarsem Singh (supra) held that "..... a belated service, related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a Writ Petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on continuous wrong, relief can be granted if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, if, such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury.....".
::27 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rushibhai Jagdishbhai Pathak Vs Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation [(2022) 18 Supreme Court Cases 144] while considering the grievance of the appellants therein about withdrawal of higher pay scale granted to them and subsequent revision of their pay scale as well as recovery towards excess payments which was raised by them before the concerned High Court. After nearly seven years challenging the impugned orders, by referring and relying upon the judgment passed in Tarsem Singh (supra) as well other judgment on the point of law of limitation and doctrine of delay and laches, limit on applicability of such rule as well as aspect of "continuity" and "recurring" cause of action and "continuity wrongs" the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that Principles underlying "continuing wrongs" and "recurring/successive wrongs" have been applied to service law disputes. A "continuing wrongs" refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury.
Therefore, learned counsel would argue that in the present case, the claim of the applicant for grant of benefit of financial upgradation and consequential benefits are continuous wrong and creates a continuing source of injury, not only that the said claim of the applicant is undisputedly not affecting right of any third parties. Even otherwise, the respondents had extended the benefit of counting of training period in the case of similarly situated RTP employees for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation etc. and various coordinate Benches of this Tribunal and various High Courts repeatedly directed the respondents to extend the benefit to the similarly placed RTP employees, the said directions has been complied with by the respondents. Under these circumstances, the objection raised by the respondents about delay in filing the present OA does not sustain in the eyes of law.
4.13 In sum, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that since the respondents had accepted the order and judgment passed in the case ::28 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters of similarly placed employees and had acceded the benefit of parity of pay as well as other consequential benefits by counting the requisite training period of such RTP employees, therefore, the applicants herein required to be treated equally being a model employer.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Vinod R Shah appearing for some of the applicants has also filed his written notes of arguments and adopted the aforesaid submissions made Mr. Joy Mathew, learned counsel for the applicant in similar group of OAs.
6. As well Mr. A D Vankar, Mr. M J Patel, Ms. S S Chaturvedi and Ms. Vilas Purani, learned counsel for the applicants in their respective similar group of OAs also adopted the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. Joy Mathew as noted herein above.
7. Per contra, respondents have filed their reply and written note of arguments and denied the claim of the applicants.
8. Ms. R R Patel by referring the averments in the reply as well the written notes of arguments mainly submitted as under: -
8.1 It is stated that the applicants in order to claim seniority, promotion, financial benefits under the TBOP/BCR/MACP, increments, pensionery benefit etc., relied upon various judgments which are mainly based on the judgment and order passed way back on 16/12/1986 by the Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur in TA No.82/1986 and the same would be the foundational decision.
The applicants are contending that, the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur has been upheld by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Firstly, the Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur way back in 1986 had directed to grant equality in pay on par with regular employees, but, had concluded that, other benefits shall be after regularization. As such, issue of equality in pay would be applicable. Secondly, it is submitted that, Hon‟ble Apex Court had simply dismissed the SLP ::29 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters without going into the merits or demerits of the case. As per the decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, when the SLP is dismissed, it cannot be said that, the decision of the Lower Court has been upheld. It is submitted that, as such, undisputedly, equality in pay was granted to the applicants at the relevant point of time. In subsequent litigation to that of before the Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur, the RTPs of the different territories of the country had gone before the different benches of this Hon‟ble Tribunal, as also, before the Hon‟ble High Courts. It is also submitted that, the applicants are heavily relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur and Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana. It is reiterated that, the Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur had directed only for equality in pay on par with regular employees. The Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana had confirmed the decision of the Hon‟ble Jabalpur bench. In all other subsequent decisions placed reliance upon by the applicants are relying upon the judgment of Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur and Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana, however, without adjudicating and in state of oblivious, some Hon‟ble Courts further directed to grant financial up gradation under MACP, Pension etc. As such, all subsequent decisions would be per in curium and/or, with great respect, by overlooking/ ignoring the earlier decision rendered by the Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur and Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana and hence, cannot be pressed into service by the applicants.
8.2 Therefore, it is submitted that, this Bench of the Tribunal without being oblivious, will deal with and adjudicate the present controversy in true perspective keeping in view the judgments rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 1989 and 1997, as also, decisions of Jabalpur Bench and Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad way back in 1986 and 27/02/2023.
8.3 It is further submitted that, none of the later litigations preferred before the Hon‟ble Co-ordinate Benches and Hon‟ble High Courts ::30 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters reliance placed upon by the applicants have dealt with the issue of delay and latches which is of more than 40 years and the applicants have not given any reason much-less any plausible reason for such long undue delay. Moreover, they have counted delay period wrongfully and deliberately stating to be of 6, 11, 12 years etc. and how such delay is counted is also not forth coming.
8.4 It is submitted that, claim of the applicants with regard to the seniority is concerned, as per the relevant Rules, as also, as established by catena of decision, length of service shall be counted from the date of regular entry in the respective cadre. Undisputedly, seniority of the applicants had been fixed accordingly based on their regular entry in the services. It is submitted that, seniority list so prepared is neither produced nor challenged by the applicants and hence, their seniority has achieved finality. It is submitted that, after more than 40 years, applicants cannot asked for the seniority counting their alleged service rendered as RTP, especially, during the period of RTP, they were not in the regular cadre and even otherwise, as per the enunciation by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, issue of seniority if finalized long back, cannot be claimed to be changed subsequently and that too, after retirement. And also, the applicants have not joined any likely to be affected employee i.r.t. fixation of seniority. Pertinently, except document directing the applicants to go for 2.5 months theoretical and 15 days practical training, as also, regular appointment order no other RTP service related documents have been produced by the applicants showing their exact date of entry as RTP; when they were called for work and for how many days; when they were placed in List-A from List-B etc., meaning thereby, no other contemporaneous substantial and cogent documents /service record of the time of RTP tenure has been produced by the applicants. As such, claim of the applicants regarding seniority, is based on no document, and hence, is untenable and misconceived.
::31 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters 8.5 It is submitted that, claim of the applicants for promotion counting their services as RTP is also untenable and misconceived, as, they were not in regular cadre when they were discharging the duties as RTP. And based on the said seniority list which was prepared has not been produced and assailed. Promotion will always from the feeder cadre. And succinctly and time and again, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has laid down that, promotion cannot be asked for after years together and so far promotion is concerned, employee would have right to be considered and not the right to be promoted. Claim of promotion counting RTP service would also hit by vice of delay.
8.6 It is submitted that the applicants are also asking for benefit of financial up-gradation under TBOP Scheme by reckoning their services discharged as RTP. In this context, it is submitted that, the applicants were already granted financial up-gradation under TBOP reckoning their service from the date of regular appointment, however, subsequently, instructions dated 05/05/2016 and clarification dated 07/02/2018 were issued instructing to count training period for the purpose of TBOP. Accordingly, TBOP benefits were revised and were granted to the applicants counting their service as RTP also. And as such, the applicants cannot ask for TBOP which was already granted to them. Alleged period of RTP other than training period cannot be counted for the purpose of TBOP.
8.7 It is submitted that as per Clause 9 of the MACP Scheme stipulates the condition as under:
"9. „Regular service for the purpose of the MACPS shall commence from the date of joining of a post in direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or on absorption/re-employment basis. Service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis before regular appointment on pre-appointment training shall not be taken into reckoning.
However, past continuous regular in another ::32 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters Government Department in a post carrying same grade pay prior to regular appointment in a new Department, without a break, shall also be counted towards qualifying regular service for the purposes of MACPS only (and not for the regular promotions). However, benefits under the MACPS in such cases shall not be considered till the satisfactory completion of the probation period in the new post.
8.8 It is submitted that, from the afore quoted provision of the MACP Scheme, it is ex-facie that, regular service of the employee shall be counted from the date of joining of a post in a direct entry grade on a regular basis either on direct recruitment basis or absorption /re- employment basis and that, even the pre-appointment training period shall not be reckoned for the purpose of MACP. From the factual matrix as projected by the applicants in the present OAs, as also, explained in the reply filed to the OAs, the applicants had been granted their due financial benefits under MACP reckoning their service from the date of their regular appointment. Prior to regular appointment, the applicant were not in any cadre. As per the said provision of the MACP Scheme, applicants‟ services rendered as RTP cannot be reckoned for the purpose of MACP and after regular appointment, undisputedly, they have been granted benefit of MACP Scheme.
In sum it is submitted that, all the applicants were granted financial up-gradations under TBOP/ACP/MACP as well as regular promotions, increment, as and when due, counting their service from the date of regular appointment.
8.9 Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment dated 29/11/1989 passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Jagrit Mazdoor Union & Ors. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and submitted that in the said case, RTPs employees had represented their case through the Union claiming to brought them on par with regular employees for grant of all service benefits, wherein, ::33 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters the Hon‟ble Apex Court had directed that, process of absorption shall be completed by 31/03/1990 and claims raised by the RTPs shall be regulated thereafter in accordance with applicable Rules and on the basis of entitlement. This Ruling of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has not been taken cognizance of by the Hon‟ble Courts whose decisions have been relied upon by the applicants and as such, they are per in- curium.
8.10 In the case of Union of India V/s K.N.Sivadas decided on 01/08/1997 the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that, any service rendered as RTP prior to their regular appointment cannot be counted for the purpose of Departmental Examination, as, they were not in the regular cadre. It is submitted that, since the applicants were not in regular cadre during the RTP tenure, such services rendered by them cannot be counted for the purpose of seniority, promotion, financial up- gradation under TBOP/ACP/MACP, increment etc. This decision has also been remained per in-curium in the decisions placed reliance upon by the applicants.
8.11 Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the judgment passed by High Court of Patna in the case of Bipin Bihari Dutta V/s Union of India decided on 28.02.2012 wherein by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N.Sivadas(supra) High Court rejected the claim for reckoning their RTP period as qualifying service.
Further, on 24/01/2023 Hon‟ble Madras High Court in WP Nos.13633/2020 and allied matters had ruled that service rendered as RTP cannot be reckoned for the purpose of seniority, financial up gradation under TBOP, MACP etc. On 22/03/202 CAT, Earnakulam Bench in O.A.No.482/2018 and other 12 matters had declined the relief of regularization of RTP service and such relief had been declined not only on merits, but, on the ground of delay also. On 30/04/2024 CAT, Cuttack Bench in O.A.No.316/2020 had rendered a ::34 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters decision rejecting the claim of the applicants on merits, as well as, on the count of delay, for regularization of RTP service for the purpose of annual increment, TBOP, MACP. On 04/112024 Hon‟ble High Court of Madras had rendered a decision in WP No.1373/2021 and another matter had dismissed the petition filed by RTP employees seeking regularization of RTP service for the purpose of fixation of seniority, pay and other allowances. It is stated that on 27/02/2025 Hon‟ble CAT, Hyderabad Bench had rendered decision in O.A.No.27/2018 and many other allied matters and dismissed the claim of the RTP employees.
8.12 Learned counsel for the respondents while objecting the maintainability of the OA(s) on the ground of delay caused in approaching this Tribunal, would rely upon order dated 01/12/2010 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India v/s A Durairaj propounding that, "stale" or "dead" issue cannot be considered and the matter should be put to an end on the ground of delay and latches.
Further, it is submitted that in the Judgment and order dated 24/07/2018 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Orissa in WP No.7015 of 2017 wherein reliance had been placed on the decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttarpradesh v/s Arvind Kumar Srivastava as well as Union of India V/s M.K.Sarkar for the ratio that, the exception in the form of latches and delay as well as acquiescence i.e., "stale" and "dead" issue cannot be considered and accordingly had allowed the petitions of the Union of India in respect of RTP employees holding that, applicants have already been retired from the service; they have slept over the matters for years together and hence, they can be treated as fence-sitters.
8.13 Learned counsel for the respondents would also rely upon the judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed in SLP (Civil) No. ::35 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters 31248/2018 by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy laying down in para-26 thereof that, right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed for a longtime must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; that merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause for the delay in filing the Appeal; that merits of the case are not be considered in condoning the delay; that delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamount to disregarding the statutory provisions.
8.14 Further, it is stated that in Civil Appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 17575/2025, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Thirunagalingam had passed a judgment and order dated 13.05.2025 in paras-31 & 32 that, while considering the plea of condonation of delay, the first and foremost duty of the court is to ascertain the bonafied of the explanation rather than to start with the merits of the main case; that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity; that the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party.
9. In sum, learned counsel for the respondents therefore, submits that the applicants have not produced any contemporaneous service record of the relevant point of time i.e. 1982 to 1989 except document showing sending them for training and regular appointment order. Their name listing as RTP employee had been accepted by them without any objection and therefore, their claim now raised would be hit by delay and latches, as well as, acquiescence. Nonetheless, after their regular appointment in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Jabalpur Bench in 1986 and Hon‟ble Supreme Court in 1989, they have been bestowed ::36 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters upon their all admissible benefits in the nature of seniority, promotion, financial up-gradation under TBOP/ACP/MACP, increment, pension etc. and they had accepted these benefits without raising any objection whatsoever.
It is submitted that, the judgments passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the year 1989 and 1997 and judgment passed by the Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur on 16/12/1986 and Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana on 27/02/2023 (which had followed the judgment of Hon‟ble CAT, Jabalpur) would hold the field.
It is submitted that, the judgments pressed into service by the applicants are all quoting the said decisions. According to the learned counsel for the respondents decisions placed reliance upon by the applicants are per in-curium and hence, to claim benefit on these decisions would be untenable and misconceived contending that, they are similarly situated. The applicants have raised their claim after their retirement and alleged cause of action qua their claim would relate back to more than 40 years ago. As such, their claim is "stale" and "dead" and would hit vice of undue, unexplained, miscounted delay and latches and even in absence of tacit explanations to reason for such delay. It is also argued that the order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Dheeraj Pal Singh (supra) is under challenge before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and therefore this Tribunal may not take into consideration as the same has been relied upon by the counsel for the applicant.
Therefore, it is submitted that the present OAs are lacking in merits, suffering from vise of undue and unexplained delay and latches, hit by principle of acquiescence. This warrants dismissal of OAs with costs.
10. Mr. H D Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents appearing in other group of OAs reiterate the averments made in the reply and ::37 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters adopt the aforesaid submissions made by Ms. R R Patel, learned counsel for the respondents.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.
12. At the outset, it is required to mention that the respondents in their reply admitted that after completing all due regular/recruitment process the applicants were selected as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant under Reserved Training Pool scheme, 1980. After said selection/regularization process, the applicants herein were undisputedly sent for practical training followed by to undergo theoretical training for 2 ½ months. Thereafter, they were engaged as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant as well they were offered temporary appointment at the relevant time in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1660/-. On introduction of Career Progression Scheme i.e., TBOP/BCR scheme, whereby employees completing 16 /26 years of service were promoted to next higher scale but the applicants engaged/appointed under the RTP scheme were not granted the said benefit. Subsequently, on regularization of their service as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, the respondents had extended the benefit of TBOP/BCR by counting he service from the date of their regular appointment. Subsequently, on introduction of the MACP scheme the applicants/RTP employees were given benefit of next grade pay on completion of 10/20/30 years of regular service. Most of the applicants were granted benefit of the MACP.
12.1 The request and claim of the applicants to count their training period/RTP in the regular service for the purpose of extending the benefit of MACP/Pension etc. in terms of various instructions issued by the directorate in the year 2000 as well as the OM dated 02.10.2022 and 24.04.2023 by treating the applicants as equal to other similarly situated applicants who are beneficiary of the such benefits based on various order and judgments passed by the ::38 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters coordinate Benches of this Tribunal, upheld by Hon‟ble High Courts as well as by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. However, the respondents have not extended the said benefit to the applicants herein. Hence, the present group of OAs.
13. The issue in respect to counting the services rendered by the applicants as RTP as qualifying services for granting the consequential benefits including the financial upgradation and the pension benefit etc. is not in res-integra.
In this regard, it is profitable to mention that by referring the order passed by CAT, Jabalpur Bench (supra), judgment passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana as well the order of dismissal of SLP by the Hon‟ble Apex Court thereon, the Hon‟ble High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in WPS No. 1912/2021 while rejecting the objection of the respondents on the point of delay and laches and other grounds directed the respondents to extend the benefit of TBOP scheme and other consequential benefits by following the directions issued by CAT, Jabalpur Bench. The said judgment passed by the High Court of Chattisgarh at Bilaspur was challenged before the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 35662 of 2025 (Union of India & Ors. Vs Vijay Kumar Upadhyay & Ors.). The said SLP was dismissed by 3 Judge‟s Bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29.08.2025. The para 2 of the said order reads under:
"we are not inclined to interefere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Peitions, are accordingly dismissed."
13.1 Further, the findings recorded by CAT Principal Bench in OA No. 3466/2019 titled as Raksh Pal Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr. Decided on 20.09.2023, has been upheld by the Hon‟ble High ::39 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters Court of Delhi by WP (C) No. 6973/2024 on 27.05.2024 with the following observation: -
"4. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order, we find no reason to once again examine the issue. In the light of the admitted position that the respondents are similarly situated as the petitioners before the Telangana High Court who have all been granted the benefits of their service as Reserved Trained Pool, there is no justification for denying the benefits of this service to the respondents for purposes of grant of MACP. We therefore find no infirmity in the impugned order".
13.2 The aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon‟ble High Court dated 27.05.2024 in WP (C) No. 6973/2024 was challenged by the petitioner therein (i.e., Department of Posts) before the Hon‟ble Apex Court by filing SLP (C) No. 29726/2024 (Union of India Vs. Raksh Pal Singh). The said SLP was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court vide judgment/order dated 10.12.2024, the para 2 of the said order of Hon‟ble Apex Court reads as under: -
"We see absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly dismissed."
14. It is apt to mention that in the latest judgment/order dated 29.08.2025 passed by 3 judge‟s Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No(s). 35662 of 2025 Union of India & Ors. v/s Vijay Kumar Upadhyay & Ors., has declined to interfere with the findings recorded by Hon‟ble High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in WPS No. 1912/2021 dated 03.10.2024. Thus, the said judgment has attained finality and in our considered view the same holds the field on the subject for counting the period of training in the case of RTP employees for the purpose of grant of financial upgradation and other consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits to them.
15. Undisputedly, the applicants in the present group of OAs are similarly situated as the petitioners in W.P.(C) 17400/2016 before the ::40 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters High Court for the State of Telangana and further the respondents concedes that the said judgment has attained finality.
16. However, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Telangana High Court did not properly appreciate the factual matrix and therefore, prays that this Tribunal may examine the issue by ignoring the decision of the Telangana High Court, the said submission as well as the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents to support their stand is concerned, in our considered view, the same is not helpful to the respondents for the reason that the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs Vijay Kumar Upadhyay & Ors. (supra) as well as in the case of Union of India Vs. Raksh Pal Singh (supra) dismissed the petition/SLP of the Department of Posts i.e., respondents herein and upheld the order passed by the concerned Hon‟ble High Court directing the respondents to comply with direction issued by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana for the purpose of grant of benefit to the RTP employees. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents will not be helpful to sustain their stand.
17. It is noticed that undisputedly the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana in WP No. 17400/2016, as well as the decision in the matter of Raksh Pal Singh (supra) have been implemented in later and spirit by the respondents. Further, as noted herein above, the applicants herein are evidently similarly placed RTP employees as like the RTP employees (original applicants in OA and respondents in W.P. No. 17400/2016) before the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana as well in the case of Raksh Pal Singh (supra). Therefore, we find substantial force in the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant herein are required to be treated equally in terms of the judgments referred herein above as well as by adhering to the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
::41 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
18. So far objections raised by the respondents on the point of the delay caused in filing the present OA is concerned, the same is also not acceptable in light of the factual matrix as discussed herein above. It is important to mention that there is no denial that identically placed retired RTP employees had been granted the benefit of judgment/order passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana (supra) as well identical order passed by coordinate Benches of this Tribunal and various Hon‟ble High Courts. Further, the very objections raised by the Department of Posts about delay in approaching the Court/Tribunal by the similarly placed RTP employees has been considered by the Hon‟ble High Court and the same has not been accepted (ref: Union of India Vs Dheeraj Pal & Ors. in WP (C) No. 7301/2025 decided by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi vide common order/judgment dated 27.05.2025). Even otherwise, we are also in agreement with the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant that "continuing wrongs" refers to a single wrongful act which causes a continuing injury and thus the grievance of the applicant is maintainable in the present OAs. Accordingly, we allow the MAs by condoning the delay caused in filing the present OAs.
19. At this stage, it is profitable to refer following the findings and directions recorded by Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 7301/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 7412/2025 decided on 27.05.2025 which reads 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.
::42 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters
(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 there against has also been dismissed vide Order dated 10.12.2024 passed in SLP(C) No. 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 there against 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, ::43 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters 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.
10. We agree with the above findings. There cannot be a different yardstick for different members of the service, requiring each one of them to approach the Court for similar benefits. In our view, the Judgment in the present case would apply in rem and therefore, the benefit should have been extended by the petitioners to all the similarly situated personnel.
11. We, therefore, find no merit in the present petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of as being rendered infructuous."
20. It is apt to mentioned that recently, by referring the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi as well the judgment passed by Hon‟ble High of Telangana (supra), the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in another identical group of OAs i.e., OA No. 4477/2024 and allied matters, decided vide order dated 23.07.2025 as under: -
"8. In view of the aforesaid order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, the O.A. is allowed with the following orders:-
(i) 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 O.А.
(ii) The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom including upgradation under MACP Scheme, pensionary benefits etc., as applicable.
(iii) 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."
20.1 The aforesaid order as well the other order and judgments has been again referred and relied upon by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in another identical OA i.e., OA No. 3628/2019 decided on 04.08.2025 whereby while quashing and setting aside the impugned order, the respondents were directed to accord the benefit to the ::44 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters applicants (therein) in terms of the decisions rendered in the matter of Rakshpal Singh (supra).
21. It is a well settled law that when the applicants are similarly situated no distinction can be made merely because the applicants were not party to the earlier court cases. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnatak Vs Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Arvin Kumar Srivastav (2015) 1 SCC 347, has evolved service jurisprudence to the effect that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all the identically situated persons must be treated alike by extending the similar benefit to them. Deviation to the said principle of law would amount discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
22. In view of the foregoing discussions as well in the light of binding judgment passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court as referred herein above, and having noticed that the respondents by implementing the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal and the judgment passed by Hon‟ble High Courts and the Hon‟ble Apex Court by extending the benefit of counting the RTP period to the similarly placed RTP employees, we are of the considered opinion that the stand of respondents to deny the identical benefit to the applicant(s) herein is not tenable in the eyes of law. Therefore, any such denial to the claim of the applicants herein by the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside.
23. Further, the respondents are directed to accord the benefits to the applicants herein in terms of the decisions rendered in the matter of Raksh Pal Singh (supra) as well the judgment passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Telangana (supra). The applicants shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing there from including upgradation under MACP scheme benefits, fixation of pension accordingly wherever applicable. It is made clear that arrears if any ::45 :: OA No. 105/2025 & allied matters found to be payable to the applicants herein is restricted to three years from the date of filing of their individual OA.
24. The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid directions, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
25. In the result, in light of the aforesaid discussions and the directions the OAs are partly allowed. MAs also stands allowed accordingly.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
Anu/NK