Union of India and Ors v. Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj and Ors

1. The respondents were selected and appointed as Sorting Assistant under the Department of Posts between 1982 and 1984. They discharged their duties as Sorting Assistant under the Reserve Trained Pool Scheme[1]. They sought regularisation as Sorting Assistant from the date of their initial appointment and parity of pay with those who have been regularly absorbed as Sorting Assistant. It was pointed out that the work they performed, and the duties they discharged, while functioning under the RTP Scheme, was the same as the work performed and duties discharged by others who were not working “RTP Scheme”, hereinafter under the Scheme.

2. Aggrieved by the fact that their request were not granted, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal[2] by way of OA 3628/2019.

3. By judgment dated 4 August 2025, the Tribunal has allowed the OA, following the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in WP 17400/2016[3] as well as the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in Raksh Pal Singh v. Union of India[4] and Union of India v. Dheeraj Pal[5].

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

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

6. Having heard Ms. Pragya Priya, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the respondents, we express our undisguised unhappiness at the fact that an issue which stands settled up to the Supreme Court, and in respect of which the Supreme Court has earlier expressed its disapproval at “the Tribunal”, hereinafter Union of India v. Ravi Krishna Order dated 27 May 2024 in WP C 6973/2024 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9874 the issue being raked up again and again, has once again been agitated in the present writ petition.

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

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

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

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

11. These decisions were followed by this Court, even more recently, in Union of India v. Purshotam Dass Sharma[6], in which we inter alia noted that when the same issue was sought to be raked up 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2464 again before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sangeeta Kaushik[7], the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the Union of India with costs of ₹ 25,000/-.

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

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

14. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.