[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
The Union Of India vs D.Srinivasan on 6 March, 2026
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan
1/14 WP No. 1390 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 12.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 06.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
WP No. 1390 of 2024
and
WMP No.1418 of 2024
1. The Union of India
Represented By
The Director General of Posts,
Dak Bhavan, New Delhi.
2.The Chief Post Master General
Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai,
Chennai-600002.
3.The Post Master General
Chennai City Region, Chennai-600002.
4.The Chief Post Master
Anna Road HPO, Chennai-600002.
5.The Deputy Chief Post Master
(Treasury)
Anna Road, Head Post office,
Chennai-600002.
Petitioner(s)
Vs.
1. D.Srinivasan
2.K.Sridhar
3.N.Sarangan
4.S.Ezhilarasan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
2/14 WP No. 1390 of 2024
5.D.Umamgeswaran
6.P.Janardana
7.N.Ramakrishnan
8.A.Selvaraj
9.M.Mohan
10.M.Bujjaiah
11.N.Bhuvaneswari
12.U.Hemalatha
13.G.Mary Francina
14.T.Vishwanathan
15.V.Prema
16.S.Sachidhanandhan
17.N.Logeeswaran
18.C.Ravikumar
19.G.Venkatesan
20.C.V.Janarthanan
21.G.Prabhakar
22.The Registrar,
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai- 104.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to order dated
21.04.2023 passed in Original Application No.1304/2018 on the file of the 22 nd
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASGI
assisted by Mr.A.R.Sakthivel
For Respondent(s): Mr.Karthik Raja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
3/14 WP No. 1390 of 2024
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J.)
The respondents in OA No.1304 of 2018, on the file of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, aggrieved by the order dated
21.04.2023, by which order, the Tribunal had directed extension of benefit of
minimum of the pay in the pay scale attached to the post in which the applicants
were working as outsiders (Casual Labourers) along with allowances attached to
such post as was paid earlier. The Tribunal had further directed that the said
exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of the order.
2.The respondents herein were working as outsiders engaged in short
term vacancies in the post of postman and Group D posts. They had completed
20 years of service. They were paid salary along with DA in accordance with
the Posts and Telegraphs Manual as well as the extant instructions of the
Department of Posts.
3.The respondents had filed OA Nos.24 and 594 of 2011 seeking
absorption in Group D vacancies by placing reliance on similar order passed by
the Tribunal at Ernakulam Bench which order had been upheld by the High
Court of Kerala. The said Original Applications were allowed by an order dated
22.06.2012 with a direction to absorb the respondents and others. A writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
petition had been filed questioning the said order and even during the pendency
of the writ petition, the respondents were disengaged from service. However,
subsequently, they were re-engaged but were paid lesser salary than what was
paid to them previously, which was equal to the salary of regular Postman or
Group D employees.
4.The respondents then filed OA No.238 of 2018 seeking equality in pay.
By order dated 09.03.2018, the respondents were permitted to give further
representation and a direction was issued to pass a speaking order on the said
representation. The respondents submitted their representations. By orders
dated 3rd / 5th of November 2018, the request of the respondents was rejected by
stating that their employment was not covered under any contract or Statute and
their services were utilised only on need basis as daily wages. It was contended
that they were not subject to any Recruitment Rules and that temporary
employees cannot claim parity in salary with regular employees in Government
Institutions.
5.Challenging that rejection, the respondents had filed OA No.1304 of
2018, wherein orders were passed directing payment of equal salary to the
respondents, challenging which order, the present writ petition had been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
6.Heard arguments advanced by Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional
Solicitor General assisted by Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the
respondents.
7.The learned Additional Solicitor General pointed out that the
respondents were not regular employees who had been recruited under proper
procedure. They were only need based employees whose services were availed
when any employee absented himself or herself from duty. There were no rules
governing their service. They cannot even be termed as temporary employees.
They were not even contract employees. They were outsiders. They were
called in to fill the vacancies arising out of leave taken by the regular
employees. They were not employed on regular basis, but at irregular intervals.
The learned Additional Solicitor General stated that for the work discharged by
them, they were paid at the rates prescribed by the District Collector. They
could be termed as short term/leave vacancies of Postman/MTS on need basis
and engaged as outsiders. It was therefore contended that they cannot be paid
regular pay as other employees of the Postal department. The learned
Additional Solicitor General therefore urged that this Court should allow the
writ petition and set aside the order of the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
8.Mr.Karthik Raja, learned counsel for the respondents however argued
that the respondents had been engaged continuously for more than 20 years and
that they have satisfied all qualifications required under Recruitment Rules for
regular appointment to the posts of Postman and Group D Posts. Their
engagement as short term/casual labourers vacancies was continuous without
any break. It was further contended that as per the letter of the first petitioner,
the Director General of Posts, New Delhi, dated 17.05.1989, all persons
working in the Postal department under different designations as Mazdoor,
casual labourers, contingent staff, daily wages and outsiders are to be treated as
casual labourers. It was further contended that the respondents were working
for more than 8 hours a day continuously. They were paid salary in the pay
scale attached to the post in which they were working. They were also paid
Dearness Allowance in accordance with the proceedings of the second
respondent, Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle at Chennai, dated
27.04.2000. It was stated that the payment was also acknowledged by the first
respondent, Director General of Posts, New Delhi, by their office memorandum,
dated 22.01.2015.
9.The learned counsel further contended that the issue had been addressed
by the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal which had directed that similarly
placed employees should be absorbed in Group D services. It was pointed out
that this direction was confirmed by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
The learned counsel pointed out that the respondents were disengaged from
service under oral instructions of the fifth respondent, Deputy Chief Post Master
(Treasury), Head Post Office, Anna Road, Chennai on 22.01.2016 based on the
further instructions issued by the fourth respondent, Chief Post Master, Head
Post Office, Anna Road, Chennai. The respondents had to issue legal notices
and in December 2017, their wages were still reduced. It was further contended
that it was under those circumstances that the respondents had approached the
Tribunal seeking parity in pay with regular employees. The learned counsel
contended that the order of the Tribunal should be upheld and does not warrant
any interference.
10.We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and perused the
material records.
11.We take judicial notice of the statement made by the learned counsel
for the respondents that the respondents are not seeking regularisation, but only
parity in pay.
12.The averment that the respondents, though termed as outsiders were
engaged at Anna Road, Head Post office at Chennai and utilised on need basis
owing to short term leave vacancies of Postman/MTS and casual workers to
clear the pendency of picking up letters from bulk customers, processing and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
despatching letters are facts which are neither denied nor disputed. The
respondents were neither Gramin/Dak Sevaks of the Department nor are they
casual labourers. But however, the fact is that their services were engaged on a
daily basis and they have been so engaged for the past 20 years. This is a fact
which is neither denied nor disputed. It is however asserted by the learned
Additional Solicitor General that they were not employed on a regular day to
day basis, but only when leave vacancies arose which arose at irregular
intervals. The respondents had occasion to approach the Tribunal earlier
seeking absorption in Group D vacancies, placing reliance on the orders of the
Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and subsequent orders
of the High Court of Kerala. A direction was issued by the Tribunal in OA
Nos.24 of 2011 and 594 of 2011. This was challenged before this Court and
even during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents were initially
disengaged and later re-engaged. The issue then narrowed down to seeking
equality of pay. The respondents claimed that they were paid the salary
equivalent to the post in which they were working and were also paid Dearness
Allowance. In this connection, reference could be made to communication
dated 17.05.1989, issued by the Additional Director General (SPN), Delhi,
wherein, it had been clarified as follows:
2.It is hereby clarified that all daily wagers
working in Post Offices or in RMS Offices or in
Administrative Offices or PSD’s/MMS under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
different designations (mazdoor, casual labourer,
contingent paid staff, daily wager, daily rated
mazdoor, outsider) are to be treated as casual
labourers. Those casual labourers who are
engaged for a period of 8 hours a day should be
described as full time casual labourers. Those
casual labourers who are engaged for a period of
less than 8 hours a day should be described as part
time casual labourers. All other designations
should be discontinued.
3.Substitutes engaged against absentees
should not be designated casual labourer. For
purposes of rectt. to group ‘D’ posts, substitutes
should be considered only when casual labourers
are not available. That is, substitutes will rank last
in priority, but will be above outsiders.
13.It is thus seen that though the petitioners claim that the respondents
were engaged against absentees, the above communication reveals that those
who are engaged against absentees are termed as “substitutes” and they were
placed last in priority above “outsiders”, but however outsiders are to be treated
as casual labourers. It is further seen that those Casual Labourers were engaged
for a period of 8 hours a day were to be described as full time casual labourers
and those who are engaged for a period of less than 8 hours a day should be
described as part time labourers. It is the specific case of the respondents herein
that they were engaged for 8 hours per day and that they are full time casual
labourers. In this connection, further reference could be made to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
communication dated 27.04.2000, issued by the Principal Chief Postmaster
General, Tamil Nadu Circle, regarding the remuneration payable to full time
/part time casual labourers. In this communication it had been stated as follows:
2.As per Directorate’s letter no.45/97/87/-
SPB I dated 10/2/1988 issued in compliance to
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decision dated
27.10.87 in W.P.No.373/86-all the casual labourers
engaged on casual basis are to be paid wages
worked out on the basis of minimum of pay in the
pay scale of regularly employed workers in the
corresponding cadre w.e.f.5.2.1986 with DA & ADA
on the minimum of pay scale. It has also been
stated that the word “Casual Labourers” would
cover full time casual labourers, part time casual
labourers and workers engaged on contingency
basis. Part time casual or contingency paid will be
paid on pro-rata basis and for the purpose of
payment, no distinction should be made whether the
casual labourer and contingency paid staff are
being paid wages or from office contingencies.
3.Also, all daily wagers working in PO &
RMS offices, Administrative
offices/PSDs/CSDs/MMS under different
designations (mazdoors, Casual labourers,
Contingent paid staff, daily wager, daily rated
mazdoor, outsider) are to be treated as Casual
labourers and all other designations should be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
discontinued in accordance with Directorate’s letter
no.45-24/88-SBB I dated 17/5/89.
14.It is thus seen that the writ petitioners themselves have, in compliance
of the directions of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, taken a
decision that all casual labourers engaged on casual basis must be paid wages
worked out on the basis of minimum of pay in the pay scale of regularly
employed workers in the corresponding cadre with DA and ADA on minimum
of pay scale. It was also clarified that mazdoor casual labourers, contingent
paid staff, daily wagers, daily rated mazdoor and outsiders are to be treated as
casual labourers. A conjoint reading of the entire communication would show
that outsiders are to be treated as casual labourers and casual labourers are to be
paid wages on the basis of minimum of pay scale of regularly employed
workers in the corresponding cadre along with DA and ADA on minimum of
pay scale.
15.It is to be further noted that the petitioners had also provided an
acquittance roll for the respondents giving details of the net pay granted to
them. For all practical purposes, the respondents have been treated as regular
employees. They were also paid House Rent Allowance/City Compensatory
Allowance and this fact had been affirmed by the communication from the
Chief Post Master, Anna Road, Head Post Office, dated 04.12.2012.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
16.The learned Additional Solicitor General however pointed out that the
respondents were employed only whenever need arose owing to the absence of
the regular employees. But, the fact remains that the petitioners themselves had
qualified outsiders as casual labourers and had directed that the casual labourers
must be paid salary equivalent to the salary paid to the regular employees
holding similar post. They were also entitled for the DA and ADA. Further
communication reveal that even HRA/CCA were also paid to them. The
acquittance roll had also been open and maintained for them. The claim before
the Tribunal was to seek equivalence in pay.
17.It is also to be noted that by office note dated 14.12.2001, the
respondents, who have been categorised as outsiders and who are to be treated
as casual labourers are also entitled for a weekly paid off on Sundays at the rate
of Group D employees. Even prior to their disengagement in the year 2015, the
respondents were receiving minimum wages from the date of their joining in
office along with allowances in accordance with instructions issued.
18.In view of the above facts, we hold that the directions issued by the
Tribunal require no interference and must be complied with by the petitioners
herein. The writ petition stands dismissed. The directions issued by the
Tribunal to extend the benefit of minimum of the pay in the pay scale attached
to the post in which the respondents are working as outsiders (casual labourers)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
along with allowances attached to such post as was being paid earlier for which
the respondents were entitled in accordance with the policy of the petitioners
should be granted within a period of three months from this date. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
(C.V.K.J., ) (K.B.J., )
06-03-2026
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
sli
To
The Registrar
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench, Chennai- 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
AND
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
sli
Pre-delivery order in
06-03-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:09 pm )
