K K GANESAN vs D/o Post

1 of 10
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 310/00102 of 2020
.
th
DATED TUESDAY, THE 11 DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
CORAM :
HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, MEMBER(A)
K. K. Ganesan,
S/o. Karupannan, Aged about 63 years,
Retired Driver – Grade I in the
O/o. The Manager, Mail Motor Service,
Coimbatore. …..Deceased/Applicant
1. Smt. Punithawathi Ganesan
W/o. late K.K. Ganesan
2. Sri Vigneshwaran G
S/o. late K.K. Ganesan
3. Smt. Sri Vigneshwari G
D/o. late K.K. Ganesan
(All are residing at Door No.1/284,
Sathy Covai Road, Kunnathur,
Kunnathur Village, Annur Taluk,
Coimbatore District - 641 107.
…......Applicants/ Brought on record as per order
in MA Nos. 290 & 291 of 2025dated 19.06.2025
(Advocate: M/s. V. Subramani)
Versus
1. Union of India Rep. by the
Chief Postmaster General, Tamil Nadu Circle,
Chennai-600 002;
2. The Manager,
Mail Motor Services,
Coimbatore-641 001. ......Respondents
(Advocate: Ms. M. Santhini)
CAV ON : 23.07.2026

2 of 10
O R D E R
(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

Applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to set aside the order dated 27.07.2019
nd
issued by the 2 Respondent rejecting the representation of the applicant for
regularization of his services from the date of initial entry into service and
consequently direct the Respondents to regularize the service of the applicant in the
cadre of Driver with effect from the date of entry into service i.e. from 12.04.1983
with all attendant and consequential monetary benefits.
2. The applicant's case is that his name was duly sponsored by the Employment
Exchange for the post of Daily Wage Driver and he was appointed as a stand-by
driver in P&T Motor Service, Coimbatore on daily wage basis by letter dated
nd

12.04.1983 (Annexure A-2). Applicant joined the services of the 2 Respondent on
12.04.1983 and ever since then, he had been working continuously without any break.
3. It is stated by the applicant that since there was ban on recruitment, he was
engaged in a regular and permanent vacancy on casual basis. While working as such,
nd
vide 2 Respondent's Memo dated 30.09.1987 (Annexure A-3), he was appointed on
a temporary basis as Cleaner (Gr.D) on daily wage basis w.e.f. 01.10.1987 on time
scale of pay. The services of applicant as Cleaner, MMS CBE was confirmed w.e.f.
nd
01.10.1990 by the 2 Respondent vide Memo dated 17.11.1990 (Ann.A-4). The

3 of 10
applicant was promoted to the cadre of Time Scale Drivers (Group C) in the scale of
nd
pay of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 w.e.f. 15.05.1995 by the 2 Respondent vide

Memo dated 15.05.1995 (Ann.A-5). The applicant was promoted as Driver (Grade II)
nd

w.e.f. 06.02.2008 in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-100-6000 by the 2 Respondent
vide Memo dated 06.02.2008 (Ann.A-6). The applicant was promoted as Driver
nd
(Grade I) w.e.f. 13.05.2011 in the scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200-GP-2800 by the 2
Respondent vide Memo dated 13.05.2011 (Ann.A-7). The applicant retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2016 as per Memo dated
28.01.2016 (Ann.A-8).
4. It is stated by the applicant that on coming to know that some of his colleagues
who also worked on casual / ad hoc basis and subsequently regularized in service,
had approached this Hon'ble Tribunal for granting retrospective regularization from
the date of initial entry into service, he submitted a representation dated 22.06.2019
(as per Ann.A-9) to regularize his service with effect from 12.04.1983 instead of
nd

01.10.1987. The 2 Respondent vide letter dated 27.07.2019 (Ann.A-10) rejected

his request stating that the question of advancement of appointment as requested in
your letter dated 22.06.2019 does not arise.

5. The applicant states that the reason given for rejecting his claim is not tenable.
nd
Since the act of the 2 in rejecting the claim of the applicant while similarly placed
persons have been granted such benefit is illegal, untenable, against the settled

4 of 10
principles of law and against the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Hence he has filed
this OA for the aforestated relief.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the applicant and
the case of M/s. S.M. Mohammed Hussain, T.C. Krishnan, K.P. Ramanathan, R.
Selvaraj, R. Angusamy, S. Thakir and N. Arumugam are one and the same and when
they have all been granted retrospective regularization with effect from the date of
their initial entry into service as per the orders issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal and the
orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal had also been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court,
the applicant is also entitled to the same treatment and relied upon the following
orders passed by this Tribunal for regularizing the appointment from the date of initial
appointment: -
(i) Order dated 28.03.1990 in O.A. No. 518 of 1988 (in Re. T.C.
Krishnan);
(ii) Memo dated 23.02.1995 issued by Superintendent of Post

Offices, Kancheepuram District regularizing the services of Mr. S.M.
Mohammed Hussain from the date of initial appointment based on;
(iii)
Order dated 08.09.1997 in O.A. No. 1061 of 1997 (in Re. T.C.
Krishnan) reaffirming his date of appointment;
(iv) Order dated 14.02.2003 in O.A. No. 141 of 2003 (in Re. K.P.
Ramanathan);
(iv) Order dated 18.09.2009 in O.A. No. 790 of 2008 (In Re. R.
Selvaraj);
(v) Common Order dated 20.10.2010 in O.A. Nos. 280, 737, 838 of
2009.

5 of 10
7. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that denial of the same
treatment to the applicant amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the

Constitution of India and the action of the Respondents in refusing to grant
regularization to the applicant from the date of his initial entry into service is
arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to various orders passed by this Hon'ble
Tribunal. Accordingly prayed for allowing this OA.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents, while reiterating the averments in the
reply statement filed by the respondents, submitted that during the year 1983, there
were 3 vacancies (SC-1, UR-2) in Time Scale Driver (Group C) cadre in MMS
nd
Coimbatore and to fill up the said vacancies, the 2 respondent obtained a list of

candidates from District Employment Office, Coimbatore. In the Departmental
Selection Committee (DSC) meeting held on 12.04.1983 for selection of three drivers
from among the list of candidates nominated by Employment Exchange Coimbatore,
nd
out of 16 candidates who had responded to the call of 2 respondent for interview,
and only 11 attended the test held on 12.04.1983. All of them were subjected to
literary test, test in arithmetic and technical test and a test in driving. Based on the
performance three candidates who were meritorious were selected by the DSC for
appointment as Drivers against the said three regular vacancies as under: -
(1) Shri R. Maruthachalam (SC);
(2) Shri C. James (OC);
(3) Shri S. Kumar (OC).

6 of 10
Further, the following three candidates, including applicant were selected as stand-by

drivers on daily wage basis to be engaged during the leave period of the above
mentioned candidates appointed as drivers: -
(1) Shri K.K. Ganesan (Applicant)
(2) Shri C. Thjudeen'
(3) Shri C. Palanisamy
9. Learned counsel submitted that the selection to all the three driver posts as
mentioned above were filled up on merit basis and the applicant was not appointed as
Driver in 1983. The regular association of the applicant with the Department was
only when he was appointed as Cleaner (Group 'D') w.e.f. 01.10.1987. The applicant
was promoted to Time scale driver (Group 'C') only w.e.f 15.05.1995. Later, he got
promotion to Grade II Driver w.e.f. 06.02.2008 and Grade I Driver w.e.f 13.05.2011.
After his superannuation on 31.01.2016, the applicant submitted two representations

dated nil and 22.06.2019 requesting for advancement in his appointment in Driver
cadre. Since the advancement of applicant's appointment as driver from a date
during which he was not discharging the duties of driver (Group 'C'), but only
working as Gr.'D' Cleaner, was not justified and had no merit, his representation
nd
was accordingly disposed of vide 2 respondent letter dated 27.07.2019 stating that
the question of advancement of appointment does not arise. Since there is no merit
in the claim of applicant, he prayed for dismissal of this OA.

7 of 10
10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels on both
sides and perused the record.
11. The applicant claims that he was appointed as a stand-by driver in P&T Motor

Service, Coimbatore on daily wage basis as per Annexure A2 letter dated 12.04.1983
and is seeking advancement of his appointment with effect from the date of his initial
entry into service on 12/04/1983.
12. On perusal of Annexure A-2, it is observed that it is only Minutes of the
Departmental Selection Committee meeting held for selection of drivers for P&T
Motor Service, Coimbatore which states that the DSC met on 12/04/1983 for
selection of three drivers for P&T Motor Service, Coimbatore; the vacancies
announced for selection were SC-1 and Unreserved-2; the Employment Exchange,
Coimbatore nominated 15 SC candidates and 32 OC candidates for the selection;
Of these, only 16 candidates responded to the call and produced their certificates;
All 16 candidates were called for interview and test on 12/4/1983; Only 11 attended
and all of them were subjected to literacy tests, test in arithmetic and technical test;
Based on their performance, all 11 were subjected to test in driving and based on their
performance in driving tests, three candidates, namely, (1) Shri R. Maruthachalam
(SC); (2) Shri C. James (OC); and (3) Shri S. Kumar (OC) were selected for
appointment as Drivers in the order of merit; Three candidates, namely, (1) Shri K.K.
Ganesan (Applicant herein); (2) Shri C. Thjudeen; and (3) Shri C. Palanisamy were

8 of 10
selected for appointment as stand-by drivers in P&T Motor Services Coimbatore on a
daily wage basis.
13. It is clear from the Minutes of meeting of Departmental Selection Committee
that three vacancies which existed in 1983 in Time Scale Driver (Group C) cadre had
been filled up by three meritorious candidates and applicant was not appointed
against those vacancies. It also makes it clear that applicant was selected as a stand-
by driver only. Applicant has not produced any order to show that he was appointed
as a Driver in 1983, nor produces any document to show that his services were
utilized as Driver in 1983 nor any proof of payment made to him for his service as
Driver.
14. It is stated by the respondents that applicant was initially appointed as Cleaner
(Group 'D') on 01.10.1987 in the pay scale of Rs.750-12-870-EB-14-940 and was
confirmed in the cadre of Cleaner w.e.f. 01.10.1989 on 17.11.1990. He was promoted
from Cleaner (Group 'D') cadre to the cadre of Time Scale Driver (Group 'C') w.e.f
15.05.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 and was subsequently
promoted to Grade II Driver w.e.f 06.02.2008 in the pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000
and then promoted to Grade I Driver w.e.f 13.05.2011 in the pay band of Rs.5200-
20200 with Grade pay Rs.2800/-. The applicant's date of birth being 07.01.1956, he
retired from service on on Superannuation on 31.01.2016.

9 of 10
15. It is clear from the above that applicant was not appointed as Driver in 1983.
His initial appointment was only as Cleaner in the Cleaner (Group 'D') cadre w.e.f.
1987 and was subsequently promoted to the cadre of Time Scale Driver (Group 'C')
w.e.f 15.05.1995. The question of continuous service as Driver without any break did
not arise in the case of applicant as he was not appointed in 1983 as Driver. Though
in his representation applicant has sought for advancement of the date of his
appointment as Driver to 1983 citing the reference of one Mr. T.C. Krishnan and the
order of this Tribunal in OA 518/1988 and OA 1067/97, it is observed that Mr. T. C.
Krishnan had challenged the cancellation of his appointment order and posting order
pursuant to ban on recruitment. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of Mr. T.C.
Krishnan case are entirely different and not applicable to applicant's case. Moreover,
the cases cited by the applicant had been disposed of on 28.03.1990 and 08.09.1999

itself. Only three years after his retirement on 31.01.2016, applicant is making claim
as if he was appointed as Driver in 1983 and had been in continuous service as Driver
without any break, which is far from truth. Therefore, none of the judgements cited
by the applicant are applicable to his case.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced PPO order dated
29/01/2016 wherein the date of joining of service of applicant is shown as
01/10/1987. Since the applicant was initially appointed as Cleaner with effect from
01/10/1987, he has been rightly granted pensionary and other benefits from the date
of his initial entry into service from that date, i.e., 01/10/1987.

10 of 10
17. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in the claim
made by applicant for retrospective regularisation from the date he was not even
appointed. We do not see any reason for interfering with the impugned order
rejecting applicant's representation in this regard. Accordingly, OA is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member(A) Member(J)
11 .08.2026
asvs
Digitally signed by ASAPU
SRINIVASA VIDYASAGAR
Date: 2026.09.01 13:03:20
+05'30'
A.S.V. Sagar
P.S., CAT,
Chennai Bench.