Similarly situated employees must be regularized on par with beneficiaries of previous judicial mandates to ensure parity.

The applicant’s father, a Postman, died in harness in 1995. Following approval for compassionate appointment by relaxing Recruitment Rules, the applicant was appointed as a Postman in 1999.

He worked in leave vacancies and sought regularization via O.A. No. 675/2003, which the Tribunal allowed; however, the Department challenged this up to the Supreme Court.

In Civil Appeal No. 7773/2009, the Supreme Court directed the regularization of 202 wait-listed candidates who were in service as of 27.10.2009.

The applicant was excluded from this list because the Department claimed he was not in service on that specific date due to absence on medical grounds between 2007 and 2009.

The applicant challenged the rejection of his regularization representations dated 29.09.2010, 03.12.2010, and 26.07.2011.

1. Whether the denial of regularization to the applicant, while extending the benefit to 202 other candidates under the Supreme Court's order, was arbitrary and discriminatory.

2. Whether an employee who was briefly absent on medical grounds during a "cut-off" date remains a "similarly placed person" entitled to the same relief as regularized peers.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that similarly situated persons must be treated alike.

It relied on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7773 of 2009 and the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 16041 of 2014, which established that the benefit of regularization must be extended to all identically placed compassionate appointees, not just the initial 202 beneficiaries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s appointment in 1999 was validly made under the relaxation of recruitment rules on compassionate grounds.

The respondents' contention—that the applicant was ineligible because he was not "in service" on 27.10.2009—was rejected because his absence during that specific window was supported by medical certificates and did not sever his employment status.

The Tribunal noted that candidates junior to the applicant had already been regularized.

By referencing A.V. Damodaran 87 Others v. Union of India and subsequent High Court confirmations, the Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was "clearly a similarly placed person" and that excluding him based on a technicality regarding his medical leave was legally unsustainable and discriminatory.

It held that the applicant is entitled to regularization on par with the 202 candidates covered by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal No. 7773 of 2009. The respondents were directed to regularize the applicant’s service as a Postman within three months.