Retrospective regularisation cannot be granted for a post the applicant was never appointed to hold.

The original applicant was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and, pursuant to the Departmental Selection Committee proceedings dated 12 April 1983, was selected as a stand-by driver on daily-wage basis, while three other candidates were selected against the three regular Driver vacancies.

He was subsequently appointed as a Cleaner on a temporary basis with effect from 1 October 1987, confirmed in that cadre, and promoted to Time Scale Driver with effect from 15 May 1995, followed by promotions as Driver Grade II and Grade I.

He retired on superannuation on 31 January 2016.

In 2019, he sought retrospective regularisation/advancement of his appointment as Driver from 12 April 1983, relying on orders concerning similarly placed employees.

The Respondent No. 2 rejected the representation on 27 July 2019, stating that advancement of his appointment did not arise.

After the applicant’s death, his widow and children were brought on record.

Whether the applicant was entitled to have his appointment as Driver regularised or advanced retrospectively from 12 April 1983, the date on which he was selected as a stand-by driver on daily-wage basis.

Whether denial of retrospective regularisation, despite the relief allegedly granted to other employees, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the impugned order dated 27 July 2019 rejecting the applicant’s representation required interference under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The application was made under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, empowering the Tribunal to adjudicate service-related grievances.

The governing principle applied was that retrospective regularisation or appointment can be granted only where the applicant establishes a valid appointment against the relevant post or vacancy; selection as a stand-by or daily-wage worker does not, by itself, amount to appointment against a regular Driver post.

The Tribunal also considered the equality principles under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but held that a claim of parity cannot succeed where the factual and legal circumstances of the relied-upon cases are materially different.

The orders relied upon concerning T.C. Krishnan and other employees were distinguished because they arose from different factual circumstances, including cancellation of appointment and posting orders pursuant to a recruitment ban.

The Tribunal examined the Departmental Selection Committee minutes dated 12 April 1983 and found that the three regular Driver vacancies were filled by R. Maruthachalam, C. James and S. Kumar in order of merit.

The applicant was placed only in the separate category of stand-by drivers to be engaged during the leave periods of the regularly selected drivers.

There was no appointment order establishing that he had been appointed against a regular Driver vacancy in 1983, nor evidence that he had performed Driver duties or received payment as a Driver during that period.

The documentary service record instead showed that his initial regular association with the Department was as a Cleaner from 1 October 1987, followed by promotion to the Driver cadre only from 15 May 1995.

The PPO also recorded 1 October 1987 as his date of joining service.

Consequently, the cases relied upon by the applicant did not establish a right to identical relief, as they involved different facts and legal circumstances.

His service and pensionary benefits were correctly reckoned from 1 October 1987, the date of his initial appointment as Cleaner.

The challenge to the order dated 27 July 2019 was rejected, the Original Application was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.