Judgment :- Elipe Dharma Rao, J. The Postal Department has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the second respondent in O.A.No.790 of 2008 dated 18.09.2009, whereby and whereunder, the claim made by the first respondent for retrospective regularization of his service in the cadre of Driver with effect from 25.05.1982, was allowed. 2. The first respondent, who was working as a Jeep Driver in the Office of SSPO, Dindigul Division, from 25.05.1982 was appointed on a Time Scale in the newly created post on 08.03.1988, and he was given Grade II promotion with effect from 30.01.2009. He made an application to the petitioner seeking to regularize his service from the date of initial appointment as a driver on casual basis on par with the other drivers, who were working in various places. 3. According to the first respondent one S.M. Mohammed Hussain, Driver, working in the Kancheepuram Division, has been given regularization of service with effect from 14.06.1983 retrospectively with all attendant benefits suo moto by the Department following the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.518 of 1988 dated 28.03.1990. Similarly, another person, by name, K.P. Ramanathan, Driver, SPOS, Arakonam Division, has also been given appointment retrospectively from 23.03.1983 as per the orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.141 of 2004 dated 14.02.2003 by following its earlier order in O.A.No.518 of 1987. The petitioner, by order dated 16.10.2008, rejected the application filed by the first respondent for the grant of similar relief. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.790 of 2008 and the same was allowed by order dated 18.09.2010. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before us. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. The Tribunal, on consideration of the facts and circumstances, came to the conclusion that since the first respondent is a similarly situated person like the other two drivers working in the other divisions, the rejection of his application on the ground that as per law, individual judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal were applicable only in respect of the particular applicants and not to all, was a clear case of discrimination. Accordingly, the original application was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to regularize the service of the first respondent from the date of his initial entry into service, as has been done in the case of persons cited supra. 6. We have once again gone through the entire materials placed on record. From the materials, we are satisfied that the petitioner has passed orders regularizing the services of the above referred persons, who approached the Tribunal and got orders in their favour to regularize their service from the date of initial appointment. Therefore, the petitioner should not have rejected the application of the first respondent, who is similarly situated as that of the said persons and working as a driver in their organization, instead of considering his case. The petitioner was not correct in rejecting the case of the first respondent by way of a non speaking order. 7. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.P. is closed. However, there will be no order as to costs.