Kerala High Court
Union Of India vs M.K. Amalraj on 16 December, 2025
O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023
: 1 :-
2025:KER:95465
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
OP (CAT) NO. 4 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OA NO.619 OF 2020 OF
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN OA:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF POSTS,
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001
2 CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL,
KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
3 ASSISTANT POST MASTER GENERAL (STAFF),
OFFICE OF THE CPMG, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM, PIN
- 695033
4 SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS,
ERNAKULAM DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682011
5 ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES,
ERNAKULAM SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682024
BY ADV SHRI.R.V.SREEJITH, SCGC
RESPONDENT/APPLICANT IN OA:
M.K. AMALRAJ,
AGED 29 YEARS
S/O. K.K. KUNJAN, WORKING AS POSTMAN, CSEZ P.O.,
KOCHI -682037, RESIDING AT MADATHIMUGAL HOUSE,
VALAYANCHIRANGARA P.O., RUBBER PARK, ERNAKULAM, PIN
- 683556
BY ADVS.
SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR
SHRI.M.ANEESH
SMT.ARATHI PRABHAKARAN
O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023
: 2 :-
2025:KER:95465
SHRI.MUHAMMED NASEEF BIN SALIM
SMT.DELLA ABRAHAM
SHRI.ARUN ABRAHAM
SHRI.GODWIN ANTONY
SHRI.VIDHU C.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.12.2025, THE COURT ON 16.12.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023
: 3 :-
2025:KER:95465
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
O.P.(CAT) No. 4 of 2023
---------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of December 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the respondents in OA No.180/00619/2020, challenging the order dated 31.10.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, allowing the OA filed by the respondent herein.
2. The respondent herein joined service as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (hereinafter referred to as 'GDSMD'), Kusumagiri, pursuant to a selection process conducted by the petitioners and was appointed on 10.12.2009. After 2 years and 8 months of service, the respondent was issued with an order dated 22.08.2012, by the 5th petitioner communicating him a decision of the 4th petitioner to terminate his employment as GDSMD, since he was mistakenly appointed without considering the better merit of one Ajith.V, who secured more marks in the SSLC. The respondent challenged the afore order by filing O.A.No.835/2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which stayed the operation of the O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 4 :-
2025:KER:95465 termination order. Ultimately, by Annexure A1 order dated 27.11.2015, the Tribunal directed that a formal appointment order shall be issued to Ajith V., who stood first in the selection and, though the respondent shall have to vacate the post of GDSMD, Kusumagiri, he shall be accommodated in any of the vacant post available in the Division. In compliance with the order of the Tribunal, the 5th petitioner issued an appointment order appointing the respondent as GDSMD II, Kakkanad. While so, the 2nd petitioner issued a notification dated 02.08.2016, calling applications for appearing in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as 'the LDCE' for short), for appointment to the vacancies in the cadre of Postman/Mail Guard. The respondent's application was not considered stating that he did not possess 5 years regular service permitting him to appear for the examination.
Challenging the said decision, the respondent filed O.A.No.836/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, seeking a direction to reckon his entire service as GDSMD for considering his candidature for the LDCE for Postman. The Tribunal, in the meanwhile, ordered the respondent to appear provisionally in the examination, by way of an interim order. When the results were published, the candidates who appeared in the examination along with the respondent, were appointed as Postman with effect from O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 5 :-
2025:KER:95465 16.11.2016. The respondent's result was withheld due to the pendency of the Original Application. Subsequently, the Tribunal, by Annexure A4 order, declared that the respondent is entitled to have his entire service as GDSMD reckoned as qualifying for the purpose of appearing in the LDCE for Postman. The petitioners were also ordered to issue consequential appointment order, since the respondent had passed the exam. Though as per Annexure A4, six weeks time was granted to the petitioners to issue appointment order, they issued Annexure A5 appointment order only on 14.11.2017. The respondent was thereafter confirmed as Postman by Annexure A6 order dated 08.06.2020. While so, the 2 nd petitioner notified the LDCE for selection to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant as per Annexure A7. As per Annexure A7, a Postman/Mail Guard having 3 years of regular service in the grade, as on 01.01.2020 is eligible for applying for selection. Even though, the respondent applied, he was not issued an admit card. It is hence, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:
"i. To declare that the applicant is entitled to be notionally appointed with effect from 16.11.2016 the date on which the similarly placed successful candidates in the LDCE for Postman conducted in 2016 were promoted and to have his entire service with effect from 16.11.2016 reckoned as qualifying service for all consequential benefits including for seniority, promotion etc;O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023
: 6 :-
2025:KER:95465 ii. To direct the respondents to reckon the notional service of the applicant as Postman with effect from 16.11.2016 as qualifying service for being considered for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant pursuant to Annexure A7 notification; iii. To direct the respondents to permit the applicant to appear for the LDCE for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant pursuant to Annexure A7 notification and to consider him for promotion to the available vacancies of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in accordance with his merit and eligibility in such selection;"
3. The Tribunal, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, by order dated 31.10.2022 allowed the OA. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:
"18. We, therefore, direct the respondents to consider his service as Postman on a notional basis to be counted with effect from 16.11.2016, on which date similarly placed successful candidates in the LDCE were appointed as Postman. This date may be taken as the date on which his service can be taken as qualifying service for purposes of consideration for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant. If in case, as has been brought out during the course of the hearing, the applicant has qualified under the SC category in the LDCE held for 2020 to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, the respondents may issue promotion orders in the matter for the applicant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further, in case if orders in respect of other candidates who appeared in the same LDCE have been issued and they have since joined in the posts of PA/SA, the applicant may be given notional seniority from the date from which the other candidates have joined. This is in order to avoid him from coming again to this Tribunal on this issue on a future occasion."
4. Heard Adv.R.V.Sreejith, the learned SCGC appearing for the O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 7 :-
2025:KER:95465 petitioners and Adv.Nirmal V.Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to consider the service of the respondent as Postman on notional basis, with effect from 16.11.2016, is illegal and cannot be sustained. He submitted that the respondent has been appointed as a Postman as per Annexure A5 order, only on 14.11.2017 and therefore, he will not acquire the requisite qualification to apply for the exams to Postal Assistant. He argued that Annexure A5 order has been issued on the basis of Annexure A4 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has only directed the petitioners to grant appointment to the respondent as Postman within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He submitted that the learned Tribunal has not ordered to consider the service of the respondent notionally from 16.11.2016 and the said order has now attained finality. He contended that the respondent has not challenged Annexures A4 and A5 orders timely and the present OA, filed more than three years after passing of Annexure A5, to reckon the previous period as qualifying service, cannot be entertained. He, by relying on the decision in Bichitrananda Behera v. State of Orissa and others [2023 O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 8 :-
2025:KER:95465 LiveLaw(SC) 883], contended that since the claim of the respondent is highly belated and since the principles of acquiescence is applicable, he is not entitled to get his service notionally calculated from 16.11.2016 onwards. He further contended that, if the order of the learned Tribunal is permitted to stand, it will disturb the seniority of many persons.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, by relying on the decisions in Jayachandran C. v. State of Kerala and Others [2020 (2) KHC 478] and Sanjay Dhar v. J&K Public Service Commission and Another [2000 KHC 1723], contended that it is only because of the fault of the petitioners, the respondent was not timely granted appointment to the post of Postman along with other candidates on 16.11.2016, even after qualifying the exam and hence he is entitled for his service reckoned notionally from that date. He submitted that, if the right things had been done at the right time, the respondent would have been appointed with effect from 16.11.2016 and hence he is entitled to be considered as deemed to be a part of the appointment along with the other candidates in the selection list. He further, by relying on the decision in Union of India and Others v. K.B.Rajoria [2000 KHC 1072], contended that the term 'regular service' does not mean actual service and will also include the period covered by notional O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 9 :-
2025:KER:95465 promotion.
7. In the instant case, the prime question to be considered is whether the order passed by the Tribunal directing the petitioners to consider the service of the respondent as Postman on a notional basis from 16.11.2016 and also granting notional seniority in the promotional post of Postal Assistant is correct or not. While considering this question, it is to be seen that the respondent has been appointed as a Postman on the basis of Annexure A4 order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.180/00836/2016. The said OA was filed by the respondent when his candidature to appear in LDCE for appointment to the post of Postman in the year 2016 was rejected on the ground that he was not having minimum qualifying service. While disposing of the OA, the learned Tribunal found that respondent is entitled to reckon the service he had put in earlier as GDSMD, Kusumagiri, for the purpose of determining the qualifying service for appearing in LDCE for appointment to the post of Postman. Considering the fact that the respondent has secured the qualifying marks for promotion as Postman in the examination, which was conducted during the pendency of the OA, the Tribunal also ordered that the petitioners to declare the respondent as selected to the post of Postman in the Scheduled Caste category to which he belongs. The petitioners were further directed to issue O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 10 :-
2025:KER:95465 appropriate orders appointing the respondent as Postman, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. But, it is very pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal, while passing Annexure A4 order, did not order that the service of the respondent as Postman be considered notionally from 16.11.2016, onwards i.e; the date when the other candidates joined. It is also to be taken note that Annexure A4 order passed by the Tribunal has now attained finality.
8. Be that as it may, it is on the basis of Annexure A4 order, the 4th petitioner issued Annexure A5 order dated 14.11.2017 appointing the respondent as Postman in Ernakulam Division. Annexure A5 would also show that the said appointment is made from 14.11.2017 only and that it does not mention anything about considering the service notionally from earlier dates. In other words, Annexure A5 also did not provide for considering the period of service of the respondent notionally from 16.11.2016 onwards. It is again pertinent to note that even though Annexure A5 has been passed as early as on 14.11.2017, the respondent has neither challenged the same nor has filed any representation before the appropriate authorities seeking to consider his service with effect from 16.11.2016 on a notional basis.
9. Further, it is to be seen that, it is only after submitting an O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 11 :-
2025:KER:95465 application for selection to the post of Postal Assistant, as notified by Annexure A7 and after understanding that he is not having the requisite qualifications, the respondent has filed the instant O.A on 16.12.2020. There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from the side of the respondent as to why he had kept quiet all along, even though he was fully aware of the contents of Annexure A5 appointment order. There is also no averment in the O.A regarding the delay and it is merely stated that the application is filed within the prescribed period under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. If so, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the theory of acquiescence squarely gets attracted in this case and hence the respondent cannot, after this long period, seek a direction to consider his earlier service notionally, for all service benefits. At this juncture, we will also take note of the fact that if the prayer, as sought for by the respondent in the O.A is allowed, the same will disturb the existing seniority list of the employees and that the Tribunal has even granted reliefs which has not been sought by the respondent.
10. The upshot of the afore discussions is that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is only liable to be set aside.
In the result, this OP(CAT) is allowed and the order dated O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 12 :-
2025:KER:95465 31.10.2022 in OA No.180/00619/2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench is set aside and O.A.No.180/00619/2020 is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI Judge Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN Judge dpk O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 13 :-
2025:KER:95465 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) NO. 4 OF 2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 27.11.2015 IN OA 835/2012 ON THE FILES OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 05.10.2016 IN OA NO. 836/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. B-6/11-2/2016- 17 DATED 16.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE OA Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 IN OA NO. 836/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE CAT ERNAKULAM BENCH Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO NO. B-6/11-2/2016- 17 DATED 14.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. B-3/13-1 DATED 08.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN OA Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.
RECTT/10-3/2020 DATED 09.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN OA Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27.11.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA Annexure A9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.01.2021 IN OP(CAT) 223/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA Annexure A10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B-6/11-6/2020 DATED 1.4.2021 DATED 1.4.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure A11 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. B-6/11-6/2020 DATED 08.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure12 TRUE COPY OF THE HALL PERMIT FOR THE DATA ENTRY SKILL TEST ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT Annexure A13 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. RECTT/10- 3/2020 DATED 19.05.2021 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO. 619/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE CAT O.P.(CAT) No.4 of 2023 : 14 :-
2025:KER:95465 ERNAKULAM BENCH Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2022 IN OA NO. 619/2020 OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL