Affirmed judicial orders for appointment relate back notionally to the date of the original judgment.

The applicant was provisionally appointed as an Extra-Departmental (ED) Packer on January 1, 2002

He sought inclusion in the "dovetailed list" for regularization, which was initially rejected but later allowed by the Tribunal in OA 801/2004 on April 16, 2004

The respondents challenged this order through the Madras High Court (WP No. 27275/2005) and the Supreme Court (SLP No. 21825/2006), both of which dismissed the appeals, with the final dismissal occurring on February 19, 2015

Following this, the respondents appointed the applicant as a Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) Mail Packer on October 17, 2015

The applicant submitted a representation seeking regularization effective from his initial appointment date (2002), which the respondents rejected via an impugned order dated August 24, 2018

The applicant subsequently filed the present OA seeking regularization and seniority from 2002

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regularization and notional seniority from the date of the original Tribunal order (2004) rather than the date of actual appointment following the conclusion of litigation (2015)

The Tribunal applied the principle that when an order is affirmed by superior courts, its implementation should relate back to the date of the original adjudication.

It primarily relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Kshiti Goswami & Others v. Subrata Kundu & Others [(2013) 11 SCC 618], which established that appointments made pursuant to court directions should be effective from the date of the original Tribunal order, granting consequential benefits and notional seniority even if back wages are excluded

The Tribunal also followed its own coordinate bench decision in OAs 2 to 7/2018, which addressed identical facts regarding the GDS regularization scheme

The Tribunal noted that the legal issue was res integra (already decided) based on previous orders in similar OAs

It observed that the applicant had successfully established his right to inclusion in the dovetailed list as early as 2004

The respondents’ delay in regularizing the applicant was solely due to their unsuccessful pursuit of appeals in the High Court and Supreme Court

Applying the ratio in Kshiti Goswami, the Tribunal reasoned that a successful litigant should not be deprived of seniority benefits simply because the employer chose to exhaust appellate remedies

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant's regularization must be treated as effective from April 16, 2004—the date of the order in OA 801/2003—rather than the 2015 date assigned by the respondents

It held that the applicant is deemed to be notionally appointed from April 16, 2004 (the date of the original Tribunal order in OA 801/2003)

The respondents were directed to grant the applicant all consequential benefits arising from this notional seniority within three months of receiving the order

No costs were awarded