Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Mohmad Mustufa Dodiya vs D/O Post on 6 November, 2025
::1 :: OA No. 224/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.224/2021
Dated this the 06th Day of November, 2025
CORAM:
Hon‟ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon‟ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Mohmad Mustufa Dodiya
S/o Habibbhai Dodoya
Age about 62 years
Retired Postal Assistant,
Residing at & Post Ilol,
Dist- Sabarkantha,
Ta- Himatnagar - 383220
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Vilas Purani)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Notice to be served through
The Secretary,
Department of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110 001.
2. The Chief Postmaster General,
(Staff Section),
Gujarat Circle, Khanpur,
Ahmedabad - 380 001.
3. The Post Master General
Ahmedabad HO,
Speed Post Bhawan,
Shahibaugh, Ahmedabad - 380004.
4. The Superintendent of Post Offices,
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::2 :: OA No. 224/2021
Sabarkantha Division,
Himatnagar HO - 383001.
5. The Post Master
Sabarkantha Division,
Himmatnagar HO-383001.
.......Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R.R. Patel)
ORDER (Oral)
Per : Hon‟ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
1. By way of the present OA, applicant inter-alia, has prayed for a direction against the respondents to count the services rendered by him 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 up- gradation under Time Bound One Promotion Scheme (TBOP), ACP/BCR and Modified Assured Career Programme Scheme (MACPs).
2. Ms. Vilas Purani, learned counsel for the applicant by referring the pleadings mainly argued as under: -
2.1 The applicant was 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, he was ordered to undergo practical training. After the completion of said training he was appointed on regular basis under the RTP Scheme.
Accordingly, the applicant was 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 him as „RTP‟ and paid salary on hourly basis at the relevant time. The department had given assurance to all RTPs for regularization against future vacancies.
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::3 :: OA No. 224/2021
2.2 While the applicant was rendering his service as per the RTP scheme, the various Unions have taken up 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.
2.3 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 was 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 employee who was appointed under RTP scheme was 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 he was performing the same duty which was carried out by previously employed officials.
2.4 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, which was decided by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal vide judgment dated 16th December, 1986 (i.e., TA No. 82/1986, All PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::4 :: OA No. 224/2021 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.
2.5 The applicant as such appointed as Postal Assistance/Sorting Assistance but treated as short duty staff under RTP scheme. He was 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 he was performing same duty which was carried out by previously employed officials. The applicant 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 applicant was offered temporary appointment in regular establishment.
2.6 Thereafter, in the year 1997-98, the respondents had granted the benefit of TBOP scheme to some of the applicant. On 03.08.2000 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::5 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 applicant 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.
2.7 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 he have selected is to be counted as qualifying service for grant of benefit of increment, pension and gratuity etc. 2.8 Learned counsel for the applicant 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 up-gradation, promotion, MACPs and fixation of pension accordingly is now no more an undecided issue.
In this regard, it is stated that the various Bench of this Tribunal as well the Hon‟ble High Courts consistently held that the PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::6 :: OA No. 224/2021 extension of benefit of financial up-gradation/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.
2.9 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 he 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.
2.10 The learned counsel for the applicant 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).
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the aforesaid order, the coordinate Bench of CAT, Hyderabad by relying upon the judgment and order PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::7 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant 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.
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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::8 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::9 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 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).
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::10 :: OA No. 224/2021
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 was directed to count the past service of the applicant towards RTP w.e.f. 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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::11 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 applicant 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
(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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::12 :: OA No. 224/2021 Posts and confirmed the direction issued by CAT Banglore Bench in respect to grant of benefit of RTP period to the applicant 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 applicant 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 applicant 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.
2.11 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 was directed to implement the order passed by the CAT, Hyderabad Bench only for the applicant 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.
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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::13 :: OA No. 224/2021 others was denied the same. Department being a model employer is not expected to act arbitrarily and discriminatorily.
2.12 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 applicant that non granting of benefit of upgradation is continuing cause of action and therefore, there is no delay. The applicant 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 applicant was granted benefit of the TBOP etc. and some of the applicant was 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.....".
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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::14 :: OA No. 224/2021 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.
2.13 In sum, learned counsel for the applicant would argue that since the respondents had accepted the order and judgment passed in the case 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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::15 :: OA No. 224/2021 applicant herein required to be treated equally being a model employer.
3. Per contra, respondents have filed their reply and denied the claim of the applicant.
4. Ms. R R Patel by referring the averments in the reply mainly submitted as under: -
4.1 It is stated that the applicant 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 applicant 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 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 applicant 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 applicant 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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::16 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 applicant 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 applicant.
4.2 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.
4.3 It is further submitted that, none of the later litigations preferred before the Hon‟ble Co-ordinate Benches and Hon‟ble High Courts reliance placed upon by the applicant have dealt with the issue of delay and latches which is of more than 40 years and the applicant have not given any reason much-less any plausible reason for such long undue delay. Moreover, he 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.
4.4 It is submitted that, claim of the applicant 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 applicant had been fixed accordingly based on their regular entry in the services. It is submitted that, seniority list so prepared is neither PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::17 :: OA No. 224/2021 produced nor challenged by the applicant and hence, their seniority has achieved finality. It is submitted that, after more than 40 years, applicant cannot asked for the seniority counting their alleged service rendered as RTP, especially, during the period of RTP, he was 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 applicant have not joined any likely to be affected employee i.r.t. fixation of seniority. Pertinently, except document directing the applicant 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 applicant showing their exact date of entry as RTP; when he was called for work and for how many days; when he was 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 applicant. As such, claim of the applicant regarding seniority, is based on no document, and hence, is untenable and misconceived.
4.5 It is submitted that, claim of the applicant for promotion counting their services as RTP is also untenable and misconceived, as, he was not in regular cadre when he was 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.
4.6 It is submitted that the applicant are also asking for benefit of financial up-gradation under TBOP Scheme by reckoning their PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::18 :: OA No. 224/2021 services discharged as RTP. In this context, it is submitted that, the applicant was 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 was issued instructing to count training period for the purpose of TBOP. Accordingly, TBOP benefits was revised and was granted to the applicant counting their service as RTP also. And as such, the applicant 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.
4.7 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 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.
4.8 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 applicant in the present OAs, as also, PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::19 :: OA No. 224/2021 explained in the reply filed to the OAs, the applicant 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 was not in any cadre. As per the said provision of the MACP Scheme, applicant‟ services rendered as RTP cannot be reckoned for the purpose of MACP and after regular appointment, undisputedly, he have been granted benefit of MACP Scheme.
In sum it is submitted that, all the applicant was 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.
4.9 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, 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 applicant and as such, he are per in- curium.
4.10 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, he was not in the regular cadre. It is submitted that, since the applicant was not in regular cadre during the RTP tenure, such services rendered by them cannot be counted for PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::20 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 applicant.
4.11 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 decision rejecting the claim of the applicant 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.
4.12 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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::21 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 hold ing that, applicant have already been retired from the service; he have slept over the matters for years together and hence, he can be treated as fence-sitters.
4.13 Learned counsel for the respondents would also rely upon the judgment and order dated 08.04.2024 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 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.
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::22 :: OA No. 224/2021
4.14 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.
5. In sum, learned counsel for the respondents therefore, submits that the applicant 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, he have been bestowed upon their all admissible benefits in the nature of seniority, promotion, financial up-gradation under TBOP/ACP/MACP, increment, pension etc. and he 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 applicant are all quoting the said decisions. According to the learned counsel for the respondents decisions placed reliance upon PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::23 :: OA No. 224/2021 by the applicant are per in-curium and hence, to claim benefit on these decisions would be untenable and misconceived contending that, he are similarly situated. The applicant 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.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record.
7. At the outset, it is required to mention that the respondents in their reply admitted that after completing all due regular/recruitment process the applicant was selected as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant under Reserved Training Pool scheme, 1980. After said selection/regularization process, the applicant herein was undisputedly sent for practical training followed by theoretical training for 2 ½ months. Thereafter, he was engaged as Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant as well he was 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 was promoted to next higher scale but the applicant engaged/appointed under the RTP scheme was not granted the said benefit.
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::24 :: OA No. 224/2021
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 applicant/RTP employees were given benefit of next grade pay on completion of 10/20/30 years of regular service. Most of the applicant was granted benefit of the MACP.
7.1 The request and claim of the applicant 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 applicant as equal to other similarly situated applicant who are beneficiary of the such benefits based on various order and judgments passed by the 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 applicant herein. Hence, the present OA.
8. The issue in respect to counting the services rendered by the applicant as RTP as qualifying services for granting the consequential benefits including the financial up-gradation 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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::25 :: OA No. 224/2021 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."
8.1 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 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".
8.2 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."
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::26 :: OA No. 224/2021
9. 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.
10. Undisputedly, the applicant in the present group of OA is similarly situated as the petitioners in W.P.(C) 17400/2016 before the High Court for the State of Telangana and further the respondents concedes that the said judgment has attained finality.
11. 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.
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::27 :: OA No. 224/2021
12. 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 applicant herein are evidently similarly placed RTP employees as like the RTP employees (original applicant 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.
13. 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.
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::28 :: OA No. 224/2021
Accordingly, we allow the MAs by condoning the delay caused in filing the present OAs.
14. 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 applicant in present OA.
(iii) The applicant 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 was 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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::29 :: OA No. 224/2021 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, 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."
15. 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: -
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'
::30 :: OA No. 224/2021
"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 applicant in present O.А.
(ii) The applicant 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."
15.1 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 was directed to accord the benefit to the applicant (therein) in terms of the decisions rendered in the matter of Rakshpal Singh (supra).
16. It is a well settled law that when the applicant are similarly situated no distinction can be made merely because the applicant was 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.
17. 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 PRATIK 2025.11.11 VYAS 15:12:27+05'30' ::31 :: OA No. 224/2021 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 applicant herein by the respondents are hereby quashed and set aside.
18. Further, the respondents are directed to accord the benefits to the applicant 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 applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing there from including up-gradation under MACP scheme benefits, fixation of pension accordingly wherever applicable. It is made clear that arrears if any found to be payable to the applicant herein is restricted to three years from the date of filing of their individual OA.
19. 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.
20. In the result, in light of the aforesaid discussions and the directions the OA is partly allowed. MA also stands allowed accordingly.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V. Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pv/
PRATIK 2025.11.11
VYAS 15:12:27+05'30'