Dismissed¶37

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

Delhi HC7 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8825/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTP Scheme; Reserve Trained Pool; Sorting Assistant; Department of Posts; regularisation from initial appointment; parity of pay; seniority; promotion; similarly placed employees; Central Administrative Tribunal OA 3628/2019; settled issue; repeated litigation deprecated by Supreme Court; writ petition dismissed in limine; no costs on first date; Union of India v. Mukesh Bhardwaj; Ravi Krishna; Raksh Pal Singh; Dheeraj Pal; Purshotam Dass Sharma; Sangeeta Kaushik.

What did the court decide?

The issue is not res integra: service rendered by Sorting Assistants under the RTP Scheme is entitled to be counted for the purposes of promotion, seniority and all other benefits, and the decisions establishing this (Ravi Krishna, Raksh Pal Singh) have attained finality upto the Supreme Court. ¶29

Union of India and Ors. Vs Shri Mukesh Bhardwaj and Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents, appointed as Sorting Assistants under the Department of Posts between 1982 and 1984 and serving under the RTP Scheme, are entitled to regularisation from their initial appointment and parity of pay/seniority benefits with regularly absorbed Sorting Assistants. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The present writ petition is fully covered by the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Purushotam Dass Sharma, the same issue having been deprecated by the Supreme Court.

¶35

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.ratio¶37
Because the writ petition is dismissed on the very first date, costs are not awarded; however, the Court indicates it may not be so lenient on the next occasion if the issue is agitated again.obiter¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (C. Hari Shankar & Vinod Kumar, JJ.; oral judgment dated 07.07.2026) dismisses in limine, on the very first date and without costs, W.P.(C) 8825/2026 by which the Union of India challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment dated 4 August 2025 allowing OA 3628/2019 of respondents appointed as Sorting Assistants under the Department of Posts between 1982 and 1984, seeking regularisation and pay parity for service under the Reserve Trained Pool (RTP) Scheme. The Court holds the issue settled upto the Supreme Court — service under the RTP Scheme counts for promotion, seniority and all other benefits (Telangana HC in Ravi Krishna, WP 17400/2016; Raksh Pal Singh, WP C 6973/2024, upheld with SLP dismissed; Dheeraj Pal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9874; Purshotam Dass Sharma, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2464) — noting the Supreme Court dismissed the Union's SLP with ₹25,000 costs in Sangeeta Kaushik (SLP(C) 11546/2026) and cautioning that costs may be imposed if the issue is raised again.

¶1

$~46

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 8825/2026, CM APPL. 41289/2026, CM APPL. 41290/2026 & CM APPL. 41291/2026

¶4

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Pragya Priya, SPC with Ms. Shruti, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

SHRI MUKESH BHARDWAJ AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta and Mr. Udit Gupta, Advs.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

¶9

¶10

JUDGMENT (ORAL) 07.07.2026

¶11

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶12

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 Scheme¹ . 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

¶13

1 “RTP Scheme”, hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8825/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.07.2026 16:31:45

¶14

Page 1 of 4

¶15

under the Scheme.

¶16

2. Aggrieved by the fact that their request were not granted, the respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal² by way of OA 3628/2019.

¶17

3. By judgment dated 4 August 2025, the Tribunal has allowed the OA, following the judgment of the High Court of Telangana in WP 17400/2016³ as well as the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in Raksh Pal Singh v. Union of India⁴ and Union of India v. Dheeraj Pal⁵ .

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

2 “the Tribunal”, hereinafter

¶22

3 Union of India v. Ravi Krishna

¶23

4 Order dated 27 May 2024 in WP C 6973/2024

¶24

5 2025 SCC OnLine Del 9874 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8825/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.07.2026 16:31:45

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

the issue being raked up again and again, has once again been agitated in the present writ petition.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

11. These decisions were followed by this Court, even more recently, in Union of India v. Purshotam Dass Sharma⁶ , in which we inter alia noted that when the same issue was sought to be raked up

¶32

6 2026 SCC OnLine Del 2464 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8825/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.07.2026 16:31:45

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

again before the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Sangeeta Kaushik⁷ , the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the Union of India with costs of ₹ 25,000/-.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

14. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine .

¶38

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

¶39

VINOD KUMAR, J.

¶40

JULY 7, 2026/ AR/aky/yg

¶41

7Order dated 6 April 2026 in SLP(C) 11546/2026 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8825/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:1 5.07.2026 16:31:45

¶42

Page 4 of 4

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kshitij Panwar Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Prince Pal & Anr. Vs State Bank of India

Nikhill Taneja Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax Inv

Renu Vs G N C T of Delhi through Chief Secretary & Ors.

Varuns Associates Vs Central Public Works Department

Indrajeet Singh Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Rites Limited

United Airlines Inc. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle (International Taxation) - 3(1)(1), New Delhi

Sumanjeet Kaur Vs M/S Northex and Company

Siddharth Yadav Vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) & Anr.

Manzoor Ali and Ors. Vs M/S Steel Authority of India and Anr.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Damador Prasad Garg & Ors.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Mukesh Meena

Union of India & Ors. Vs Gian Chand & Ors.