Central Administrative Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Manharsinh Ratansinh Jadeja vs D/O Telecom on 10 October, 2025
:: 1 :: O.A.No.643/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH
O.A. No.643/2016
Dated this the 10th Day of October, 2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Hukum Singh Meena, Member (A)
1. Manharsinh Ratansinh Jadeja
Son of Ratansinh Jadeja,
Age about 47 yrs..
Residing at Military Society,
Plot No. 167, Opp. Bajrangdas
Hall, Valukad, Tal. Ghogha,
Dist. Bhavnagar -364 001.
2. Rajubhai Ramjibhai Jadeja,
Son of Ramjibhai Jadeja,
Age about 45 yrs..
Residing at: Ghogha Gate, SDOT,
Khadsalya, Tal.Ghogha
Dist. Bhavnagar-364 001.
3. Gannouri Prasad Harihar Yadav
Son of Harihar Yadav,
Age about 47 yrs.,
Khumbarwada, Matia Road,
Bajrang Nagar, Kalathadav Nirma,
Bhavnagar -364 001.
4. Vanmalibhai Mohanbhai Vakani
Son of Mohanbhai Vakani,
Age about 58 yrs.,
Residing at Barsho Mahadevni wadi, Opp.
Phil Grden, Ujadvav,
Bhavnagar-364 001.
5. Rajendrasinh Lakubha Gohil,
Son of Lakubha Gohil,
Age about 51 yrs., Residing at Bhojpara,
Vaya, Thirdthej,
Tal. & Dist. Bhavnagar-364 001.
6. Kalam Ansari, Son of Mohammed Ansari,
Age about 45 yrs.,
residing at Room No. 398, Kumbarwada,
Nari Road,
2025.10.15
PRATIK VYAS
14:56:57+05'30'
:: 2 :: O.A.No.643/2016
Tal. Ghogha, Dist. Bhavnagar -364 001.
7. Ansari Mohammed Aminulla Thaswar Hussain,
Son of Thaswar Hussain,
Age about 44 yrs.,
residing at Kumbarwada, Koti No. 269,
Nari Road, Near Peeper,
Tal. Sihor, Dist. Bhavnagar-364 001.
8. Chandubhai Pratapsinh
Chauhan, S/o. Pratapsinh
Chauhan, age about 44 yrs
residing at Mahagautemeshwar Nagar,
B/h. Gurukul, Tal. Sihor,
Dist. Bhavnagar-364 001.
9. Pravinbhai Veljibhai Vaghela,
Son of Veljibhai Vaghela,
Age: 47 yrs., Sarvoday Society,
Plot No. 110A, Opp. Bauchaji Mata Mandir,
Dada Nagar, Bhavnagar 364 001.
.....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Namrata H Chauhan)
Versus
1. Union of India
Notice to be served through
The Secretary,
Ministry of Communications,
Sanchar Bhavan, New Delhi. 110001
2. Chief General Manager,
Gujarat Telecom. Circle,
Telecom Bhavan, C.G.Road
Ahmedabad.380006
3. General Manager
Telecom District, DoT Cell,
CTO Building, Bhavnagar 364 001.
4. General Manager
BSNL, Telecom District,
DoT Cell, CTO Building,
Bhavnagar 364 001.
.......Respondents
(By Advocate: Ms. R.R. Patel)
2025.10.15
PRATIK VYAS
14:56:57+05'30'
:: 3 :: O.A.No.643/2016
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per : Hon'ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)
The applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-
"VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR:-
(A) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to declare the impugned decision of respondent No. 4 dated 7.1.2016 vide letter No. BV/CL/Legal Notice/2 at Annexure-A/1 declining the scheme of temporary status to the applicants at par with the petitioners in Special CA 13222/2014, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, non-application of mind and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(B) Be pleased to declare that the case of the present applicants is at par with those 36 casual labourers in Special CA 13222/2014 and further direct the respondents to grant the benefits of temporary status to the present applicants in light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court dated 23.2.2015 in SCA 13222/2014. C) By pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefits of temporary status to the applicants from retrospective date and pay the amount of arrears with 12% interest.
(D) Be pleased to direct the respondents to recover the cost and compensation from the erring officer rejecting the claim of the present applicants when the case of the present applicants is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. (E) Any other relief that this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice be granted."
2025.10.15 PRATIK VYAS 14:56:57+05'30' :: 4 :: O.A.No.643/2016
2. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:-
2.1 The applicants herein are engaged as casual labour in or about 1987 by the erstwhile Department of Telecommunication.
Subsequently, their service/engagement was terminated in the year 1989. Being aggrieved, the applicants herein along with other similarly placed casual labourers raised an industrial dispute in the year 1992 and demanded reinstatement with full back wages with the help of Labour Union.
2.2 The Government of India vide their order dated 24.08.1994 has referred the said industrial dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Gujarat under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 the said reference was numbered as ITC No.15/1994.
2.3 The Industrial Tribunal (Central) while deciding the dispute whether the action of Telecom District Manager, Bhavnagar in terminating the services of 47 casual labourers is justified, party allowed the said reference vide award/order dated 07th April, 2000 with the direction upon the 1st Party i.e. Telecom District Bhavnagar to reinstate the 47 workmen which includes the applicants herein on the job which they were performing prior to their termination and further direction was given to pay them 30 per cent of back wages calculated on the basis of average six months earning preceding the termination (Annexure A/2 refer).
Challenge to the said award before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat resulted in dismissal.
2.4 In the meantime, for grant of Temporary Status and Regularization in favour of the casual Majdoors who were engaged by the respondents during the period 30/31.03.1985 to 22.06.1988. The respondents introduced the Scheme 1989 and subsequently the DoT, 2025.10.15 PRATIK VYAS 14:56:57+05'30' :: 5 :: O.A.No.643/2016 New Delhi had also published the Scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization vide communication dated 17th December, 1993. Hereinafter referred as the Scheme 1993 wherein certain terms and conditions were stipulated for grant of Temporary Status and Regularization in Group 'D' of the Casual Labourers who were still continuing for such works where they were initially engaged and who were not absent for the last more than 365 days counting from the date of issuance of the DoT, New Delhi letter dated 17th December 1993.
2.5 Thereafter, these casual laborers approached this Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 117/2009 for issuance of direction upon the respondents to grant them Temporary Status and their regularization as Group D employee in terms of the Scheme of 1989 and 1993. The said OA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide judgment/order dated 03.08.2011.
2.6 Subsequently, some of the applicants of the said OA No. 117/2009 filed a Review Petition which was also dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 09.05.2014.
2.7 Thereafter, being aggrieved with the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 117/2009 as well order in review; some of the applicants of the said OA had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by way of filing SCA No. 13222/2014. The said petition was allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 23.02.2015 with the direction upon the respondents to grant the benefit of temporary status to the petitioners therein along with difference in salary.
2.8 However, the respondents being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of filing a SLP which was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure A/6 refer).
2025.10.15 PRATIK VYAS 14:56:57+05'30' :: 6 :: O.A.No.643/2016 2.9 Thereafter, the respondents complied with the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat and granted the benefit of the scheme to the petitioners therein.
2.10 However, the said identical benefit of grant of Temporary Status under the Scheme 1993 has not been granted to the applicant(s) herein. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant no. 3, 6, 8 & 9 of the present OA were party in the OA No. 117/2009 and other applicants were party before the Industrial Dispute Tribunal.
2.11 Since, the respondents denied the equal treatment to the applicant(s) herein in respect of grant of benefit of Temporary Status under the Scheme 1993. Hence, this OA.
3. Per contra, the respondents have filed the reply and denied the averments made by the applicant mainly on the ground that earlier some of the applicants of the present OA along with other similarly placed employee approached this Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 117/2009 which was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 03.08.2011.
Thereafter, some of the applicants of the said OA had filed revision application and the same was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, the other similarly placed employees approached the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat by way of filing SCA No. 13222/2014 which was allowed. However, the present applicants were not party to the said SCA and therefore, the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 117/2009 had attained finality qua the applicants herein. Therefore, the applicants herein are not entitled for any relief.
4. The applicants have filed the rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the OA and additionally submitted that the respondents cannot deprive the benefit of the scheme to the present 2025.10.15 PRATIK VYAS 14:56:57+05'30' :: 7 :: O.A.No.643/2016 applicants since the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 117/2009 has been quashed and set aside and the specific direction were issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat which was also upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court to grant the benefit of temporary status and other benefits under the scheme to the petitioners. The applicants are undisputedly identically placed workmen and only because they have not approached the Hon'ble High Court against the order passed by this Tribunal, cannot be treated unequally by the respondents.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Undisputedly, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat vide order dated 23rd February, 2015 passed in SCA No. 13222/2014 had reversed the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 117/2009 by referring and following the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 1 & the judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat in the case of Telecom District Manager Vs. Jagdishkumar D. Varatiya & Ors decided 13.08.2014 in SCA No. 8499/2013 as well as the findings recorded by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Ashok Virambhai Kargatia vs. Union of India decided on 12.01.2015 in SCA No. 9721/2014 that "the Department could not have taken shelter of the exclusion clause contained in the judgment of Umadevi (3) & Ors. (supra) nor could have the Tribunal non-suited the petitioner on this ground. To reiterate, the petitioner has succeeded before the Court of competent jurisdiction in establishing that his termination by the Department was illegal with further direction for re- instatement with continuity. That being so, he was entitled to all consequential benefits. It is not the case of the respondents that he was not covered by the Scheme of Temporary Status and Regularization in service. They have also not denied that other 2025.10.15 PRATIK VYAS 14:56:57+05'30' :: 8 :: O.A.No.643/2016 employees engaged after him have got such benefit of temporary status and regularization long back."
While reversing the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 117/2009, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat dispose of the said SCA No. 13222/2014 with further direction upon the respondents to grant the benefit of the temporary status Scheme to the petitioners therein and pay the difference in salary but without interest.
The said judgment in SCA No. 13222/2014 has not been disturbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP filed thereon, vide order dated 26.10.2015 in SLP No. 18828/2015.
7. Further, it is not in dispute that the applicant(s) herein were re- instated in terms of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Gujarat. Therefore, it is not open for the respondents to treat them unequally for the purpose of grant of benefit of Temporary Status and other benefits as provided under the Scheme 1993 as the said benefits were provided to the similarly placed workmen.
In other words, some of the applicant(s) herein could not join in the petition i.e. SCA No. 13222/2014 along with other applicant(s) of the OA No. 117/2009; they cannot be deprived of the equal treatment on the said sole ground.
8. At this stage, it is apt to mention that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat while deciding the identical issue arose in the matter of Ashok Virambhai Kargatia vs. Union of India in SCA No. 9721/2014 dated 12.01.2015 wherein it was held that once the termination of the applicants declared illegal, they are entitled for full benefits flowing from final direction of reinstatement with continuity. Therefore, it was not permitted for the respondents to take shelter of the exclusion clause contained in Umadevi case and on such ground it is also not permitted for the Tribunal to non-suit the applicant(s) on such ground. Therefore, the reason assigned by the respondents to deny the grant of benefit of Temporary Status etc., to the applicant(s) mainly on the 2025.10.15 PRATIK VYAS 14:56:57+05'30' :: 9 :: O.A.No.643/2016 ground that they were not amongst the petitioners in the SCA No. 13222/2014 is not acceptable.
The applicant(s) herein were undisputedly re-instated in terms of the award passed by Learned Industrial Tribunal (Central) Gujarat as discussed herein above.
9. In light of the aforesaid undisputed factual matrix, in our considered view, the applicants herein are required to be treated equally for the purpose of grant of Temporary Status in terms of Scheme 1993 as provided to other similarly placed workmen.
10. In view of what is stated herein above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this OA with direction upon the respondents to re- consider the claim of the applicant in light of the discussion made herein above and without the influence of the impugned order dated 07.01.2016 (Annexure A/1) for the purpose of grant of equal treatment including grant of benefit of Temporary Status etc., by following the mandate stipulated under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is expected that the respondents shall complete the exercise within four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order by providing additional opportunity to the applicants to supply any additional details if needed and intimate the decision to the applicants forthwith.
11. In view of the forgoing, the OA stands disposed of. Pending MAs, if any, shall also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Hukum Singh Meena) (Jayesh V Bhairavia)
Member (A) Member (J)
/pv/
2025.10.15
PRATIK VYAS
14:56:57+05'30'