Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 9324
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH
M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member, M.L. Srivastava, Administrative Member
B Selvakumar – Appellant
Versus
M/o Communication & It – Respondent
OA/310/01458/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Malaichamy
For the Respondents: Su. Srinivasan
Parity in seniority cannot be claimed by an employee regularized in the normal course of service with those whose regularization was specifically ordered by a court of law, especially when no actual loss of seniority is demonstrated.
Headnote:The applicant, appointed as a Postal Assistant under the Recruitment Reserve Register (RRR) on compassionate grounds, sought refixation of seniority from the date of approval of appointment (12.03.1996) or the date of commencement of training (18.03.1996). The applicant claimed parity with other RRR candidates who were regularized from their initial date of engagement. The court found that the applicant was already senior to the candidates he sought parity with, as he was regularized in the normal course of service on 24.07.1997, whereas the others were regularized much later in 2010. The central issue was whether an employee regularized in the normal course of service is entitled to claim parity in seniority with employees whose regularization was mandated by specific judicial directions. The court held that the benefits extended to certain candidates pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions in SLP No. 2976/2008 were a consequence of specific litigation and cannot be treated as a general principle applicable to all RRR candidates. In the result, the OA is dismissed of devoid of merits.
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:
“To call for the records of the 5th respondent pertaining to his order made in No. REP/Misc/2015/CCR dated 01.08.2018 and set aside the same; and consequently to, direct the respondents to re-fix the seniority of the applicant at par with RRR candidates, such as J. Elangovan after affording reasonable opportunity to all aggrieved persons, if any, and grant all the attendant benefits and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.
Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:
The applicant's father was employed as a Postman at Tambaram Head Office and died in harness on 30.06.1989. Considering the financial hardship suffered by the applicant's family, the Circle Recruitment Committee (CRC), headed by the second respondent, approved the applicant's appointment to the post of Postal Assistant vide Memorandum dated 12.03.1996. Pursuant to the said approval, the applicant underwent theoretical training at the Postal Training Centre, Madurai, with effect from 18.03.1996 and successfully completed the same. Thereafter, he underwent practical training for a period of 30 days from 01.06.1996 at Tambaram Head Office, as per the Memorandum dated 31.05.1996 issued by the fourth respondent. Upon successful completion of the practical training, the applicant was posted to work as Postal Assistant at Padappai Sub Office under Tambaram Head Office vide memorandum dated 27.06.1996. According to the applicant, several Reserve Trained Pool/Recruitment Reserve Register (RRR) candidates were subsequently regularised with effect from the date of approval of their appointments. One such instance is that of Shri J. Elangovan, whose appointment was approved with effect from 01.01.1997 and who was regularised from the said date by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Arakonam Division, vide order dated 21.03.2011. On coming to know of the regularisation of similarly situated RRR candidates, the applicant submitted a representation dated 04.12.2017 to the fourth respondent requesting that his seniority be fixed either from the date of approval of his appointment, namely 12.03.1996, or, alternatively, from the date of commencement of his training, i.e., 18.03.1996. As there was no response, he submitted another representation dated 02.06.2018 seeking refixation of his seniority. The fifth respondent, however, rejected the applicant's claim vide order dated 01.08.2018. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the applicant has filed the present Original Application.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that all RRR candidates whose services were regularised were granted the benefit of regularisation from the date of approval of their appointments to the respective cadres. It was, therefore, contended that the applicant is also entitled to identical treatment and that his seniority ought to be refixed with effect from 12.03.1996, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all affected persons. It was further contended that the order dated 01.08.2018 passed by the fifth respondent is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unsustainable in law.
Learned counsel further submitted that, in terms of the Government of India's Decisions Nos. 5 and 6 below Rule 2 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, the period spent on pre-appointment training is liable to be counted as qualifying service for pensionary benefits. Accordingly, it was argued that the applicant's training period should also be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. In support of the above submissions, reliance was placed on the orders of this Tribunal in OA No. 30/2024 dated 28.10.2025 and OA No. 1649/2016 dated 08.04.2026. Learned counsel accordingly prayed that the Original Application be allowed.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing
