Sivan Pillai C. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member –

The applicant challenges the proceedings of the respondent to conduct direct recruitment to the post of GDS MP, Perinad SO, on a premise that the applicant has a superior claim and that post, by virtue of his provisional engagement from 13.5.2013.

According to the applicant, he was working as a substitute at Perinad Post Office from the year 2008 onwards. The GDS MP, one Vinobha, was promoted with effect from 13.5.2013, on occurrence of a regular vacancy and considering the experience of the applicant, he was provisionally engaged against a regular vacancy with effect from 13.5.2013 and has been continuing thereafter till date. To substantiate the claim that he has been receiving salary on monthly basis, he relied on Annexure A1 series of documents. However, it was stated that though the applicant was continuously working, artificial breaks were shown on record by issuing monthly receipts in the name of one Ravindran Pillai. However, the applicant had drawn the salary, since he had worked in the respective months also. Ravindran Pillai is not in existence, it was claimed. All the official works were done by the applicant.

While so, the respondents issued a notification inviting applications for regular appointment to various posts of GDS, including that of Perinad. Annexure A2 is the said notification. By DG Posts letter dated 18.5.1979, ED agents having more than 3 years of provisional service, acquired a right of permanent appointment and it was directed that all efforts should be taken to provide alternative employment to such provisional employees. Annexure A3 is the said communication. Similar persons had approached this Tribunal seeking benefits on the strength of Annexure A3. In OA No. 82 of 2003 similar relief was granted evidenced by Annexure A4.

In OA No. 931 of 2011 by Annexure A5 order the Tribunal had ordered that the applicant therein was entitled to be included in the list of discharged/displaced GDS and that if the selection process in respect of the post claimed has not been processed, the respondents shall consider the claim of the said applicant. Though it was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court, it was dismissed by Annexure A6 judgment in OP (CAT) No. 1606/2012.

Claiming the benefits, the applicant submitted Annexure A7 representation. However, no reply has been given. Accordingly, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by the present OA. The reliefs sought are as under:

In the reply statement, Respondents stated that the applicant was initially engaged as a Substitute against the leave vacancy of regular incumbent in the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Packer. It has been held by this Tribunal in several cases that a Substitute is not entitled to regular engagement and being a Substitute of regular incumbent, on his own responsibility, has no preferential right to continue in the post. The respondents relied on the order in OA No. 417 of 2009. It was also contended that the post of GDS MP, Perinad SO became vacant with effect from 21.6.2013 consequent to the promotion of the regular incumbent. As per records, the vacant post was managed by two outsiders, namely Sivan Pillai, the applicant herein and one Ravindran Pillai. The vacant post could not be notified immediately due to administrative reasons. Thereafter, Annexure A2 notification was issued. In Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi [(2006) 4 SCC 1] it was held that merely because a temporary employee or a casual worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following the due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. The claim of the applicant that he was appointed on provisional basis and entitled to get the benefits of Annexure A3 is not correct. The applicant was engaged on a stop gap basis from 21.6.2013 intermittently due to the administrative delay in issuing the notification for filling up the regular vacancy. Such intermittent engagements on provisional basis will not ripen into any claim, it was stated.

The claim of the applicant that he was continuously engaged is wrong. As per the records, the applicant was not continuously engaged in the vacant post. The acquittance roll was produced as Annexure R1 series. Evidently, the applicant was engaged only in the alternate months and not continuously.

A rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating his contentions in the Original Application. It was stated that the post of GDS MP, Perinad became vacant on regular promotion of Shri Vinobha. Thereafter, the applicant has been continuously engaged as GDS. Though for few months the department issued proceedings showing Ravindran Pillai as occupying the post, applicant has been continuously working without any break. The claim that the engagement was a stop gap arrangement is also not legally sustainable.

An additional reply statement was filed by the respondents. It was stated therein that the post of GDS MP, Perinad became vacant only 21.6.2013 and not on 15.5.2013 as claimed by the applicant. He was not working continuously from 15.5.2013 onwards. The regular incumbent to the post of GDS MP, Perinad was on leave without allowance. As per records, the vacancy was managed by engaging two outsiders, the applicant and one Ravindran Pillai. The applicant was engaged as a Substitute to work in the place of regular incumbent during the periods from 1.5.2013 to 8.5.2013 and 10.5.2013 to 31.5.2013. Ravindran Pillai was engaged to work during 1.6.2013 to 20.6.2013. The communication of the Superintendent of Post Offices approving the engagement of Ravindran Pillai was produced as Annexure R2. The charge report on the transfer of charge certifying that the charge of the GDS Packer, Perinad was made over by the applicant to Sri Ravindran Pillai on 1.6.2013 was produced as Annexure R3. The particulars of the intermittent engagements of the applicant for the short period and that of Ravindran Pillai was shown separately in a tabular form. The attendance register maintained by Perinad SO was signed by both the applicant as well as Ravindran Pillai for the relevant periods. The applicant has signed only during the period during which the applicant was engaged and Shri Raveedran Pillai had signed in the register, during the period in which he was engaged. The claim that the proceedings were issued on behalf of Ravindran Pillai but the works were extracted from the applicant is absolutely baseless and not supported by any evidence. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the Original Application.

Heard both sides and examined the records.

The applicant’s claim is set up on a specific premise that consequent to the promotion of the GDS MP Vinobha on 13.5.2013, the applicant was provisionally engaged against the regular vacancy with effect from that date, till 2017, the period during which the Original Application was filed. His claim for alternate employment is based on Annexure A3 DG communication of the respondents. In Annexure A3, it was stated that it had come to the notice of the office that provisional appointments were being made to ED posts which were to continue for indefinite periods and when regular appointments are made, the provisionally appointed persons do not readily hand over the charge. Accordingly, instructions were issued. It was also stated that efforts should be made to give alternate employment to ED agents, who are appointed provisionally and subsequently discharged from service due to administrative reasons. If at the time of discharge, they had put in not less than 3 years of continuous approved service, their names should be included in the waiting list of ED agents discharged from service.

This claim is resisted vehemently by the respondents on the premise that the applicant was not continuously engaged during the said period, but was engaged only intermittently along with another person Shri Ravindran Pillai. It was also contended that the engagement of the applicant was not on provisional basis but only as a temporary stop gap arrangement due to the delay in notifying the permanent post. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to any relief, based on Annexure A3. On the other hand, the respondents have a specific contention that the engagement of the applicant was with effect from 21.6.2013. They have another contention that the applicant as well as Ravindran Pillai were alternatively engaged from 2013 to 2016. The exact period during which both of them were engaged are also mentioned in a tabular form. It indicates that applicant was engaged during alternate months and during the other alternate period Ravindran Pillai was engaged. This, factual aspect on records is not specifically denied by the applicant. However, his contention is that in fact Ravindran Pillai was a fictitious person and in fact the applicant himself was engaged continuously. However, records were created as if Ravindran Pillai was engaged during alternate periods, it was contended.

To substantiate the claim of the applicant he relied, on Annexure A1 series of salary slips. He has produced the salary slips for the period August, 2013, December, 2014, April, 2016 and April, 2017. In all the above slips the name of the applicant is available as an “outsider” and nature of engagement is indicated as “stop gap”. On the other hand, the respondents have relied on Annexure R1 series of documents to show that Ravindran Pillai was engaged. Annexure R1 is the acquittance roll by which payment was made between January, 2017 to May, 2017 to Ravindran Pillai. He is indicated as “attached as GDS MP” and is shown as an “outsider”. Annexure R2 is a copy of the communication issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Kollam Division dated 2.7.2013 approving the engagement of the outsider Shri Ravindran Pillai as Substitute in place of Vinoba for the period from 1.6.2013 to 20.6.2013. Annexure R3 is the charge report on transfer of charge certifying that the GDS Packer, Perinad charge was made over by the applicant to Ravindran Pillai on 1.6.2013. Annexure R3 shows that charge was hand over by the applicant to Ravindran Pillai. The signatures of both persons are seen.

These factual details that the applicant and Ravindran Pillai were intermittently engaged supplemented by Annexures R1 to R3 cannot be doubted in the absence of any other details. The contention of the applicant that in fact he was engaged to work continuously during the entire period and Ravindran Pillai was a fictitious person is not established by any records. On the other hand, Annexure R3 which is not disputed by the applicant shows the signature of the relieved officer and the relieving officer. Applicant has no explanation regarding it. Even assuming that his contention that the applicant was engaged continuously and acquittance roll and salary slips were issued in the name of both persons either the salary slips of Ravindran Pillai should be available with him, or it should be presumed that during the period during which Ravindran Pillai was permitted to work, applicant was working without salary. Both the possibilities are unbelievable. Hence, it is clear that the applicant was not engaged continuously for a period of three years.

The Hon’ble High Court in Superintendent of Post Office v. Dasan C. - OP (CAT) No. 240 of 2017 [2025 KHC (Online) 10163] had held that only employees appointed provisionally and discharged after three years are entitled to alternate employment. Outside and stop gap arrangements lack such claims.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench in G. Ruckmani v. Union of India – [2026 Supreme (Online) (CAT) 4181] had held that stop gap outsider engagement as BPM are temporary, until the regular incumbent joins. There is no right for regularization or permanency without prescribed recruitment process.

The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Tomy Joseph v. Superintendent of Post Office [2016 Supreme (Online) (KER) 18361] had held that an eligibility for re-engagement of a provisional employee requires formal appointment through a selection process.

These facts clearly show that the applicant is not entitled for any relief. Consequently, the Original Application fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

2013.