Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Todal Singh vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 23 April, 2026
1
(Reserved on 22.02.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
this the 23rd day of April , 2026
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. MALLIKE ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Original Application No. 805 of 2023
Todal Singh, S/o Shri Murari Lal Yadav, Aged about 60 years,
retired Temporary Status Mazdoor, R/o Satyam Colony, Village -
Bijhia, District - Mandla (MP) - 481661. .........Applicant
V E R S U S
1. Chairman cum Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, H.C. Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Chief General Manager, B.S.N.L Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal -
462015.
3. Controller of Communication Accounts, Ministry of Communication,
First Floor, Door Sanchar Bhawan, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal -
462015.
4. General Manager, B.S.N.L, Business Area, Jabalpur, CTO Compound,
Jabalpur - 482001.
5. Assistant General Manager (OA), BSNL, Mandla (MP) - 481661.
......Respondents.
Advocate for the applicant :- Shri J.B. Singh
Advocate for the respondents: Shri Manish Chourasiya for respondents 1, 2, 4& 5
Shri Surendra Pratap Singh for respondent no. 3
ANAND
2026.04.28
PRAKASH
10:16:05+05'30'
DUBEY
Page 1 of 17
2
ORDER
Delivered by Mrs. Mallika Arya, AM.-
In the present original application, the applicant is seeking direction to the respondents to regularize his services with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, increments, promotion/financial upgradations and terminal benefits.
2. As per the OA, the applicant was initially engaged on 01.06.1986 as casual labour in the office of SDO (T), Mandla. His services were dispensed with vide notice dated 30.12.1989 (Annexure A-1). Thereafter, the applicant raised an industrial dispute before Central Government Industrial Tribunal and vide award dated 18.05.2001 (Annexure A-3), the respondents were directed to reinstate him in service as he had acquired temporary status by virtue of working as casual worker in the Department. In compliance to the aforesaid award, though the applicant was reinstated in service and joined on 13.12.2001 (Annexure A-4), but the respondents challenged the said award before Hon'ble High Court of M.P in W.P. No. 5621/2001 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure A-5). Even the SLP filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 14.05.2010 (Annexure A-
6). Thereafter, vide order dated 06.01.2011 (Annexure A-7), the ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 2 of 17 3 applicant was reinstated and regularized as a temporary status Mazdoor w.e.f. 01.10.1989. However, as per letter dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure A-9), the respondents treated his appointment as Temporary Status Mazdoor w.e.f. 12.12.2001 for appointment as Regular Mazdoor on completion of 10 years i.e. w.e.f. 13.12.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that action of the respondents in not treating his appointment as Regular Mazdoor w.e.f. 13.12.2011 is unjustified and illegal. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per the award of the CGIT, the applicant was reinstated in service from 13.12.2001 (Annexure A-
4) and subsequently, the said award has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, as per rules, on completion of 10 years as Temporary Status Mazdoor, the applicant is entitled for regaularization of his services as Regular Mazdoor from 13.12.2011. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per Rule 2 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, the applicant being temporary employee is entitled for pension after his retirement on 30.04.2023. Being aggrieved the applicant has filed application for pension but having received no response, he has filed the present original application.
ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 3 of 17 4
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that since the applicant had been continuously working in casual capacity with the respondents, he was entitled for regularization and consequently for pensionary benefits. Learned counsel for the applicant has also cited several judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5580/2024 - Jaggo Vs. U.O.I & Ors and the judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018 - Dharam Singh & Ors. Vs. U.O.I & Ors and submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in above judgments, the applicant deserves consideration for regularization with consequential benefits. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that despite the order of the CGIT dated 18.05.2001 to reinstate and regularize the applicant as temporary worker and also to treat the absence from duty as continuous service for the purpose of pensionary benefit, the respondents have not counted his past services as qualifying service. Thus, the learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the action of the respondents is illegal, unjustified and against the law and prayed that the OA may be allowed and the relief may be granted to the applicant ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 4 of 17 5
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in compliance of the order of CGIT which had attained finality after dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the applilcant was reinated in service w.e.f. 01.10.1989 without any back wages. However, as per the order of the CGIT, period of absence was treated as continuous service only for the purpose of pensionary benefits. As there was no scheme of regularization in BSNL after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors, he could not be regularized. The respondents have further stated that as the applicant did not hold any regular post till he attained the age of superannuation, either in the erstwhile DoT i.e. prior to 01.01.2000, he is not entitled for pension as per sub rule 7 of Rule 37 A of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that public employment must adhere to the principles of equality of opportunity, therefore, granting regularization to the applicant would violate the rights of other eligible candidates who are waiting for regular recruitment. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 5 of 17 6 SCC 1 and prayed that the original application being devoid of merit, may be dismissed.
6. Having given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, we are of the view that the applicant's long and uninterrupted service for the periods extending beyond ten years cannot be ignored. While dealing with a similar issue in the case of Jaggo Vs U.O.I & Ors (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following and allowed the appeals: -
"10. The appellants, throughout their tenure, were engaged in performing essential duties that were indispensable to the day-to-day functioning of the offices of the Central Water Commission (CWC). Applicant Nos. 1, 2, and 3, as Safaiwalis, were responsible for maintaining hygiene, cleanliness, and a conducive working environment within the office premises. Their duties involved sweeping. dusting, and cleaning of floors, workstations, and common areas a set of responsibilities that directly contributed to the basic operational functionality of the CWC. Applicant No. 5, in the role of a Khallasi (with additional functions akin to those of a Mali), was entrusted with critical maintenance tasks, including gardening, upkeep of outdoor premises, and ensuring orderly surroundings.
12. Despite being labelled as "part-time workers," the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 6 of 17 7 continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. Their engagement was not sporadic or temporary in nature; instead, it was recurrent, regular, and akin to the responsibilities typically associated with sanctioned posts. Moreover, the respondents did not engage any other personnel for these tasks during the appellants' tenure, underscoring the indispensable nature of their work.
13. The claim by the respondents that these were not regular posts lacks merit, as the nature of the work performed by the appellants was perennial and fundamental to the functioning of the offices. The recurring nature of these duties necessitates their classification as regular posts, irrespective of how their initial engagements were labelled. It is also noteworthy that subsequent outsourcing of these same tasks to private agencies after the appellants' termination demonstrates the inherent need for these services. This act of outsourcing, which effectively replaced one set of workers with another, further underscores that the work in question was neither temporary nor occasional.
14. The abrupt termination of the appellants' services, following dismissal of their Original Application before the Tribunal, was arbitrary and devoid of any justification. The termination letters, issued without prior notice or explanation, violated fundamental principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 7 of 17 8 records are unblemished. In this case, the appellants were given no opportunity to be heard, nor were they provided any reasons for their dismissal, which followed nearly two decades of dedicated service.
15. Furthermore, the respondents' conduct in issuing tenders for outsourcing the same tasks during the pendency of judicial proceedings, despite a stay order from the Tribunal directing maintenance of status quo, reveals lack of bona fide intentions. Such actions not only contravened judicial directives but also underscored the respondents' unwillingness to acknowledge the appellants' rightful claims to regularization.
16. The appellants' consistent performance over their long tenures further solidifies their claim for regularization. At no point during their engagement did the respondents raise any issues regarding their competence or performance. On the contrary, their services were extended repeatedly over the years, and their remuneration, though minimal, was incrementally increased which was an implicit acknowledgment of their satisfactory performance. The respondents' belated plea of alleged unsatisfactory service appears to be an afterthought and lacks credibility.
17. As for the argument relating to educational qualifications, we find it untenable in the present context. The nature of duties the appellants performed-cleaning, sweeping, dusting, and gardening-does not inherently mandate formal educational prerequisites. It would be ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 8 of 17 9 unjust to rely on educational criteria that were never central to their engagement or the performance of their duties for decades. Moreover, the respondents themselves have, by their conduct, shown that such criteria were not strictly enforced in other cases of regularization. The appellants' long-standing satisfactory performance itself attests to their capability to discharge these functions, making rigid insistence on formal educational requirements an unreasonable hurdle."
7. While dealing with the issue regarding regularization of a casual labour/daily wager, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the judgment in the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and has clearly observed in the case of Jaggo (Supra) as under: -
"20. It is well established that the decision in Uma Devi (supra) does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities. The said judgment sought to prevent backdoor entries and illegal appointments that circumvent constitutional requirements.
However, where appointments were not illegal but possibly "irregular," and where employees had served continuously against the backdrop of sanctioned functions for a considerable period, the need for a fair and humane resolution becomes paramount. Prolonged, continuous, and unblemished service performing tasks inherently required on a regular basis can, over the time, transform what was initially ad-hoc or temporary into a scenario demanding fair ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 9 of 17 10 regularization. In a recent judgement of this Court in Vinod Kumar and Ors. Etc. Vs. Union of India & Ors., it was held that procedural formalities cannot be used to deny regularization of service to an employee whose appointment was termed "temporary" but has performed the same duties as performed by the regular employee over a considerable period in the capacity of the regular employee. The relevant paras of this judgment have been reproduced below:-
"6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi (supra).
7. The judgment in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1230 even if were not made strictly in accordance with the prescribed Rules and Procedure, cannot be said to have been made illegally if they had followed the procedures of regular appointments such as conduct of written examinations or interviews as in the present case..
21. The High Court placed undue emphasis on the initial label of the appellants' engagements and the outsourcing decision taken after their dismissal. Courts must look ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 10 of 17 11 beyond the surface labels and consider the realities of employment:
"continuous, long-term service, indispensable duties, and absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. In that light, refusing regularization simply because their original terms did not explicitly state so, or because an outsourcing policy was belatedly introduced, would be contrary to principles of fairness and equity."
22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations."
8. While allowing the case of Jaggo (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has further made the following observation in context of the case of Uma Devi (Supra) and held as follows: -
ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 11 of 17 12 "26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (Supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointment. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable service over decades."
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court following their earlier view in the case of Jaggo (Supra) has also allowed the case of Dharam Singh & Ors (Supra) expressing their categorical view which is as under: -
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 12 of 17 13 endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India4 and in Shripal & Another v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabads have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term "ad hocism", the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder:
"14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra)2 to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are "illegal" and those that are "irregular," the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor- based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practice.
12. ....................
13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing canno0t become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 13 of 17 14 practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not "full time" employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals.
14. The learned Single Judge of the High Court also declined relief on the footing that the petitioners had not specifically assailed the subsequent decision dated 25.11.2003. However, that view overlooks that the writ petition squarely challenged the 11.11.1999 refusal as the High Court itself directed a fresh decision during pendency, and the later rejection was placed on record by the respondents. In such circumstances, we believe that the High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the State's stance in refusing sanction, whether in 1999 or upon reconsideration in 2003. rather than dispose of the matter on a mere technicality. The Division Bench of the High Court compounded the error by affirming the dismissal without engaging with the principal challenge or the intervening material. The approach of both the Courts, in reducing the dispute to a mechanical enquiry about "rules" and "vacancy" while ignoring the core question of arbitrariness in the State's refusal to sanction posts despite perennial need and long service, cannot be sustained.
15. Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained. The State's refusals ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 14 of 17 15 dated 11.11.1999 and 25.11.2003, in so far as they concern the Commission's proposals for sanction/creation of Class-III/Class-IV posts to address perennial ministerial/attendant work, are held unsustainable and stand quashed.
16. The appeal must, accordingly, be allowed.
17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organize work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "ad-hocism"
thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If "constraint" is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 15 of 17 16 discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.
19. Having regard to the long, undisputed service of the appellants, the admitted perennial nature of their duties, and the material indicating vacancies and comparator regularizations, we issue the following directions........."
10. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the applicant was reinstated in service and joined as Temporary Status Mazdoor on 13.12.2001 and continued to serve the department till 30.04.2023 i.e. the date of superannuation. It is also noted that after dismissal of SLP, the respondents vide order dated 14.12.2011 brought the applicant back in service w.e.f. 01.10.1989 for the purpose of pensionary benefit. However, other service benefits including his appointment as Temporary Status Employee has been treated w.e.f. 12.12.2001. Thus, in our considered opinion, as per order dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure A-9), on completion of 10 years service from 12.12.2001, the applicant was eligible to be appointed as Regular Mazdoor from December 2011, but no such order has been issued till the applicant was superannuated on 30.04.2023. He has superannuated as Temporary Status Mazdoor. Since the applicant had continued to work with the department for more than a decade uninterruptedly which has not been denied by the respondents, the claim of the applicant deserves consideration in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo (Supra). ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 16 of 17 17
11. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Original Application No. 805/2023 is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for regularization w.e.f. 13.12.2011. Consequently, the applicant be given financial upgradation /promotion if due after 13.12.2011 and accordingly after fixation of pay notionally, release pension to the applicant taking into account his length of service from 01.10.1989 for the purpose of eligibility of pension. The above exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
12. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava) Administrative Member Judicial Member Anand...
ANAND 2026.04.28 PRAKASH 10:16:05+05'30' DUBEY Page 17 of 17