Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Manoranjan Naik vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 10 February, 2026
1 OA 260/00654 of 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH
OA No. 260/00654 OF 2015
Reserved on: 21.01.2026 Pronounced on: 10.02.2026
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JAYESH V BHAIRAVIA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
1. Sri Manoranjan Naik, aged about 44 years,
son of Madhab Chandra Naik, At-
Bhugudakata, P.O. Bhanjpur, Baripada, Dist.-
Mayurbhanj.
2. Ramesh Ch. Bhoi, aged about 43 years, son
of Brundaban Bhoi, At-Sankharisahi, P.O.
Parbatipur, P.S. Biridi, Dist.-Jagatsinghpur.
3. Narendra Ghadei, aged about 44 years, son
of Siba Ghadei, At-Tulasichoura, P.O.-
Baripada, Dist. Mayurbhanj.
4. Dhirendra Mohanta, aged about 50 years,
son of Bhairab Mohanta, At Kadalibadia,
P.O.-Shirishbani, Dist.-Mayurbhanj. [Dead]
5. Sri Biranchi Narayan Behera, aged about 40
years, son of Lt. Surendranath Behera,
At/P.O.-Belgadia, W.No.-1, Baripada, Dist.-
Mayurbhanj.
6. Sri Saroj Kumar Ranjit, aged about 41 years,
son of Ramanath Ranjit, At-Jamundadeipur,
W.No.-18, P.O.-Bhanjpur, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
7. Sri Srinibas Naik, aged about 43 years, son
of Lt. Sanatan Naik, At/P.O.-Badpatharkham,
P.S. Bangiriposi, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.10
15:38:20 +05'30'
2 OA 260/00654 of 2015
8. Sir Kiananda Mukhi, aged about 42 years,
son of Ramakanta Mukhi, At/P.O.-ldar, P.S.-
Betnoti, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
9. Sri Deepak Ku. Behera, aged about 33 years,
son of Lt. Priyanath Behera, At-Jadurhera,
P.O. Balidiha, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
10. Sri Paresh Mukhi, aged about 44 years, son
of Lt. Baino Mukhi, At-Kalikapur, P.O.-
Baripada, Dist. Mayurbhanj. [Dead]
11. Sri Sanjay Kumar Samal, aged about 43
years, son of Lt. Chandramohan Samal, At-
Karatbass, P.O. Badjod, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
12. Sri Kailash Chandra Mohanta, aged about
44 years, son of Laxmikanta Mohanta, At-
Tungadiha, P.O.-Badjod, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
13. Sri Pratap Chandra Naik, aged about 46
years, son of Purna Ch. Naik, At-Majhigaon,
P.O.-Bangiriposi, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
14. Sri Jagannath Singh, aged about 41 years,
son of Indra Singh, At-Sijua, P.O.-Bhursani,
Dist.. Mayurbhanj.
15. Sri Subash Ch. Behera, aged about 41 years,
son of Hadibandhu Behera, At-Pathuri, P.O.-
Jalda, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
16. Sri Kamalochan Sahu, aged about 40 years,
son of Laxman Sahu, At/P.O.-Raikama, P.S.-
Baisinga, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
17. Sri Salkhan Soren, aged about 42 years, son
of Kanhai Soren, At/P.O.-Unchagaon, Dist.
Mayurbhanj.
18. Sri Binod Prasad Behera, aged about 42
years, son of Mangal Behera, At-Handa, P.O.-
Bangiriposi, Dist.-Mayurbhanj. [Dead]
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.10
15:38:20 +05'30'
3 OA 260/00654 of 2015
19. Harendra Naik, aged about 43 years, son of
Mukunda Naik, At/P.O.-Silaighati, Dist.
Mayurbhanj.
20. Sri Mangulu Naik, aged about 37 years, son
of Purna Chandra Naik, At-Majhigaon, P.O.
Bangiriposi, Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
21. Sri Kunaram Hembram, aged about 40
years, son of Lt. Sunaram Hembram, At-
Adapalt (Nalusahi), P.O.-Jualia, Dist.-
Mayurbhanj.
22. Sri Sidhilal Murmu, aged about 39 years,
son of Lt. Palu Murmu, At-Khathubeda, P.O.-
Dugudhi, Dist. Mayurbhanj.
23. Sri Chandramohan Choudhury, aged about
41 years, son of Prafulla Chandra
Chaudhury, At/P.O.-Purunabaripada, Dist.-
Mayurbhanj.
......Applicants
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented through the
Secretary, Telecommunication Department,
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL),
represented through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director, Sanchar Bhawan,
Janapath, New Delhi.
3. Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Odisha Telecom Circle,
Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurda.
4. Telecom District Manager, represented
though B.S.N.L. Baripada, At/P.O. Baripada,
Dist.-Mayurbhanj.
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. S K Das, counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.10
15:38:20 +05'30'
4 OA 260/00654 of 2015
For the respondents: Mr. K C Kanungo, counsel for BSNL
Mr. R S Pattnaik, counsel for UOI
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
At the first blush, it is noteworthy that due to difference of opinions between two Members of the Division Bench, this matter has been placed before the Full Bench.
2. We feel it just and proper to refer to a few facts necessary for adjudication of the matter. According to the applicants-
(a) Between 1991 to 1997, all of them were engaged as casual labourers.
(b) On 29.09.2000, a circular was issued by the DoT to consider regularization of causal laborers as one time measure.
(c) On 04.03.2004, the Corporate Office of BSNL directed respondent No.2 to verify the records of the applicants and take steps for regularization of their services.
(d) On 16.12.2004, the Dy. General
Manager (Admin), Odisha Circle
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.10
15:38:20 +05'30'
5 OA 260/00654 of 2015
issued instruction to all heads of the SSA to invite representation by 31.01.2005 from the existing casual labourers and forward the same with recommendation or otherwise for regularization.
(e) On 24.05.2006, the DGM (Admn), Odisha Circle directed the TDM, Baripada to recommend the cases of the left out persons for consideration.
(f) On 02.06.2006, TDM, Baripada submitted the list of casual labourers with detailed biodata with due recommendation for regularization.
(g) On 21.12.2006, the TDM, Baripada also submitted detailed report stating inter alia that the applicants are entitled to be regularized.
(h) On 20.01.2014, applicants submitted representation ventilating their grievances for regularization.
(i) Thereafter, they had approached this Bench in OA No. 982/2015, which was disposed of on 07.01.2015 directing respondents to consider their representation.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 6 OA 260/00654 of 2015
(j) On 26.06.2015, their representations were rejected.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 26.06.2015, 23 (twenty three) applicants filed this OA on 27.08.2015 (during the pendency, three of the applicants at Sl.Nos. 4, 10 and 18 expired as submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant in his notes of submission) seeking to quash the order of rejection dated 26.06.2015 and to direct the respondents to regularize them under the Management of BSNL in the available vacancies with grant of all consequential service and financial benefits.
4. The respondents 2 to 4 filed their counter contesting/ opposing the case of the applicants by stating that the Baripada Unit of BSNL Orissa Circle forwarded names of 167 casual/contractual labourers for scrutiny without proper supporting documents of their engagements, which resulted in return of their names to Telecom Divisional Manager, Baripada vide letter dated 21.06.2006 for review. Meanwhile, various court cases were filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Tribunal and CGIT for which the process of RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 7 OA 260/00654 of 2015 regularization was kept in abeyance by the order dated 04.03.2004. The regularization was not legally permissible as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612/1999 in the matter of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi and dated 16.01.2009 in SLP(C) No. 7803 of 2006 in BSNL Vs. Teja Singh. They have also denied that any such similarly situated casual worker of BSNL has been regularized and it has been stated that various types of technical and non-technical works of BSNL are being carried out by the regular employees of BSNL. Some maintenance and developmental activities are assigned to the approved labour contractors on job contract basis and, that BSNL is not engaging casual labourers directly. There is a continuing ban on engagement of casual labourer in DOT/BSNL. There is no record that the applicants were engaged in the office of the TDM, Baripada as casual labourers. The applicants are engaged and payments are made only through the contractors. It is not correct to state that they are covered by the DOT Letter dated 29.09.2000 since the letter dated 29.09.2000 covers only casual RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 8 OA 260/00654 of 2015 labourers engaged during the DOT period having specific criteria and not contractual workers. After corporatization of Telecom vide order dated 29.09.2000, it was decided to regularize the left out casual workers working in DOT. Accordingly, order dated 29.09.2000 was issued for regularization of casual workers including those who have been granted temporary status. While regularization process of left out casual labourers was under process, decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999) came into effect holding that regularization of daily rated workers de hors the provision of recruitment rules is legally untenable. It has been stated that in response to BSNL Corporate office, New Delhi letter dated 01.11.2002 and Orissa Circle letter dated 08.08.2003, names of 1437 casual labourers were considered for regularization, out of which, 455 were recommended. The names of the applicants were not in the list of 1437 casual labourers. Delay and latches have also been taken as one of the grounds for not granting the relief as prayed for by the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 9 OA 260/00654 of 2015 applicants. In view of the above, the respondents have prayed that the applicants have no right to claim regularization and this O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Ld. Counsel for the applicants, in course of hearing of the matter before the Division Bench submitted that the respondents, with a view to sustain their illegal action, have taken the plea of delay and latches but, on the fact and circumstances, the present case is not hit by delay and laches especially when applicants have been challenging the inaction/illegal action of the respondents time and again and the present impugned order is dated 26.06.2015 and the O.A. has been filed on 23.08.2015, i.e. within the period of limitation of one year provided in the AT Act, 1985. Further, it was contended that the respondents are estopped under law to adduce new grounds in the counter other than what has been stated in the order of rejection dated 26.06.2015 impugned in this O.A. and, therefore, the dispute is liable to be adjudicated solely based on the ground taken in the impugned order. It has been contended that the applicants RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 10 OA 260/00654 of 2015 were engaged under the DoT on casual basis continuously and had completed more than the required number of years for grant of temporary status and regularization as per the scheme framed. Their engagement through outsourcing on such casual basis after corporatization of BSNL is hardly of any ground to deny them their rightful claim of regularization as has been done in respect of other similarly situated employees taking into consideration their continuous engagement on casual basis for more than two decades as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, which have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Karnataka and others Vs. M.L.Keshari and others, 2010(II) OLR SC 982; Nihal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2013) Vol-14 SCC, 65 and Amarkant Rai Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 2835 of 2015 decided on 13.03.2015 and the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Manoj Kumar Parida Vs. State of Orissa and Ors., WP(C) No. 8340/2012 disposed of on 24.03.2014, which was upheld RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 11 OA 260/00654 of 2015 in WA No. 413 of 2014 disposed of on 15.05.2015. It has been submitted that when the TDM, Baripada Telecom District forwarded the names of the applicants for regularization, the authorities concerned ought not to have doubted the recommendation and return for reverification. The TDM, Baripada forwarded the names of the applicants with reference to the records relating to their engagement and payment made to them. Only to delay and deprive the applicants, the competent authority returned the matter to TDM, which cannot be accepted as a bonafide act. The applicants have been continuously in engagement on casual basis under the respondents for last two decades and have become overaged. Therefore, throwing them out of employment without regularization will have cascading effect not only for their life and livelihood but for their dependant family members also. Accordingly, Ld. Counsel for the applicants has passionately prayed for granting the relief claimed in this O.A.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents besides reiterating the point of delay and latches submitted RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 12 OA 260/00654 of 2015 before the Division Bench that the engagement of the applicants on casual basis without following the rules is legally untenable and, therefore, they have no right to claim regularization especially in the absence of their engagement against any sanctioned posts. The respondents' counsel in support of delay and latches placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.C.S.Negi Vs. UOI & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 7956/2011 CC No. 3709/2011 and C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology & Mining and Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115 etc. Further, respondents have placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (C.A. No. 3595-3612 of 1999) and BSNL Vs. Teja Singh, in SLP(C) No. 7803/2006, to justify that the engagement being de hors the rules is illegal, and the applicants are not entitled to be regularized. It was submitted that the BSNL is passing through financial crunch and is not going to create further posts for regular mazdoors and make appointment thereto. Various types of technical and non-technical works are being carried out by regular RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 13 OA 260/00654 of 2015 employees of BSNL and some maintenance and developmental work is assigned to labour contractor on job contract basis. It has been stated that in the DoT period, the applicants, might have been engaged as casual labourers on as and when required basis but they do not fulfill the criteria laid down in DoT letter dated 29.09.2000. The cases of the applicants were duly considered but the same was rejected in a well reasoned order. The process of regularization as per DoT letter dated 29.09.2000 was put to an end before it could take final shape in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra). It was submitted that the Committee, constituted for regularization, on scrutiny had found that though payment particulars for some cases were received and recommended by SDOs and SDEs but payment particulars of 240 days is not available in any case. Therefore, the Committee could not recommend the cases as the candidates did not fulfill the criteria mentioned in BSNL Corporate Office letter dated 04.03.2004. It was further stated that as the fact of the case cited by the applicants is different and distinct with the present case, the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 14 OA 260/00654 of 2015 same are not applicable herein. Accordingly, respondents prayed for dismissal of this O.A.
7. The matter was heard by the Division Bench. The then Hon'ble Judicial Member of the Division Bench came to the conclusion as under:
"6. It is seen that the respondents have admitted in the order impugned under Annexure-A/8 dated 26.06.2015 that the applicants have been working in the capacity of Full Time Casual Labour in the various places/sub offices under the Telecom District Manager, Baripada, Odisha Telecom Circle from their date of engagement, which is near about two decades. Consequent to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in WP No. 373/1986, a scheme known as "Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme" was implemented in the year 1989, and keeping in view the provisions of this scheme, regularization of Temporary Status Casual Mazdoor was done during the Dept. of Telecom (DOT) period, since then. On the eve of corporatization of BSNL, vide order did. 29.09 2000, it was decided to regularize all the casual labourers working in the department. Accordingly, DoT vide letter No. 269- 94/1998-STN-11 dtd. 29.09.2000 issued orders for regularization of all Casual Labourers, including those who have been granted Temporary Status. As per these orders casual labourers including TSMs are to be regularized with effect from 01.10.2000. It has been admitted by the respondents that after issue of the above said order, it was expected that all casual labourers would have been regularized. However reports of the Circles indicated that many casual labourers have been left out and were yet to be regularized. The BSNL Management, was in the process of regularizing such left out casual labourers, when the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 1, came into effect. Thereafter, in the case of BSNL, Jammu Vs. Teja Singh (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting terms "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointments" mentioned in Para 53 of Uma Devi RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 15 OA 260/00654 of 2015 judgment held appointment made de hors the rules will have to be treated as "illegal" and not as "irregular".
Hence, they have rejected the claim of the applicants for regularization. Now, the case in hand has to be examined as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) and Teja Singh (supra), relevant portion of which are as under:
Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi and others [2006 (4) SCC 1] :
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified.
There may be cases where regular appointments (not illegal appoints) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa (1967 1 SCR 128), R.N. Nanjundappa (1972 1 SCC 409) and B.N. Nagarajan (1979 4 SCC 507) and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 16 OA 260/00654 of 2015 In the case of Teja Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in view of the decision in the case of Uma Devi, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the 1989 regularization scheme having not been enforced in the case of the respondent, it did not come within the purview of the exception carved out by the Court in paragraph 53, of Umadevi. In the instant case, it is the specific case of the respondents that while the BSNL Management was in the process of regularizing such left out casual labourers, the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi and others vide order dtd. 10.04.2006 (Civil Appeal Nos. 3595-3612 of 1999) came into effect. Thereafter, in the case of BSNL, Jammu Vs. Teja Singh (supra) Hon'ble Apex Court while interpreting terms "irregular appointment" and "illegal appointments" mentioned Para 53 Uma Devi judgment held appointment made de hors the rules will have to be treated as "illegal" and not as "irregular". Thus, the case of the applicant squarely covered under the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 53 of Uma Devi case (supra) and the respondents ought to have concluded the process of regularization as one time measure in respect of the applicants as they having been continuing since last two decades and became overaged. In view of the chain of facts discussed above, this Tribunal is not impressed upon the submission of the Respondents to unsuit the applicants on delay and latches. The said submission is overruled.
7. In the case of Amarkant Rai Vs State Of Bihar & Ors (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:
"15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has served the University for more than 29 years on the post of Night Guard and that he has served the College on daily wages, in the interest of justice, the authorities are directed to regularize the services of the appellant retrospectively w.e.f. 03.01.2002 (the date on which he rejoined the post as per direction of Registrar)."
8. In the case of AFR Patitapaban Dutta Dash and others -Versus-State of Odisha & others, RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 17 OA 260/00654 of 2015 W.P.(C) No. 19951 of 2020, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa observed as under:
"8. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Court comes into picture only to ensure observance of fundamental rights, and to ensure the rule of law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the authority should not exploit its employees nor should it seek to take advantage of the helplessness and misery of either the unemployed persons or the employees, as the case may be. For this very reason, it is held that a person should not be kept in contractual, temporary or ad hoc status for a long period. Where a contractual, temporary or ad hoc appointment is continued for long, the Court presumes that there is need of a regular post and accordingly directs for regularization. While issuing direction for regularization, the Court must first ascertain the relevant fact, and must be cognizant of the several situations and eventualities that may arise on account of such direction. If for any reason, a contractual, ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularization, provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. Even though a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell, say two or three years, a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his service. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with empathy for the person."
9. Trite is the position of law that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 18 OA 260/00654 of 2015 Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought, out. Thus, as per the law stated above, the new facts and grounds taken in the counter and in course of arguments is not tenable in law. Even the new stand taken in the counter and in course of hearing is taken into consideration in view of the facts and law mentioned above, at no stage of imagination it can be said that the impugned order is sustainable in the litmus test of judicial scrutiny. The applicants are admittedly continuing since more than three decades. By applying the ratio of Umadevi's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nihal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 65 has been pleased to direct absorption of the applicants overruling the plea of non-existence of posts.
10. In view of the facts and law discussed above, the impugned order under Annexure-A/8 dated 26.06.2015 is hereby quashed. The Respondents/BSNL Management, are directed to resume the process of regularizing the applicants and complete the same within a period of 90 days and intimate the result thereof to the applicants within the said period."
8. The then Hon'ble Member (Admn.) did not concur the prima facie view expressed by the then Hon'ble Member (Judl.) and sought to refer the matter to Full Bench for adjudication/decision on the points of reference. Accordingly, the Full Bench is constituted to decide on the point of reference as under:
"(i) Whether Department of Telecommunication is responsible for absorbing workers with regards to regularization as the Scheme was RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 19 OA 260/00654 of 2015 fundamentally notified by the Department in 1989/Circular of 2000 for the workers working in the Department?
(ii) Whether the BSNL can be forced by mandamus to regularize, absorb and create posts for the applicants when the Scheme/Circular of 1989/2000 was not notified by them for their workers and what is the legal liability of the BSNL to regularization the applicants when the Scheme was never notified by them?
(iii) Can a direction in the nature of a mandamus or otherwise be issued at all when a scheme is not operated upon by the concerned respondents for whatever reasons?
(iv) Will not the Law of Limitation apply in
the case at hand per para 2 of
discussions in this judgment, given the fact that the applicants were sleeping for more than a decade and lost 08 occasions to approach the courts?
(v) Do the applicants have any viable, reliable and justifiable evidence per the tenets of service jurisprudence to claim regularization relief at all?
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 20 OA 260/00654 of 2015
(vi) Will not Uma Devi and Kesari judgments come in the way of any legal effort to regularize the applicants in light of discussions in this judgment in para 4-5 of this judgment?
(vii) Was there any irregular appointment at all in terms of any justifiable documentary evident to enable application of Uma Devi given that some leeway is available for irregular appointees for regularization?
(viii) Whether citations need to be first analysed and weighed for their application carefully in light of judgments cited in paragraph 3 of this judgment?
(ix) Whether the judgment of Hon'ble High Court Odisha dated 27/11/2009 in WP No. 17474 of 2009 and that of CAT Cuttack dated 29/06/2012 in OA 195/2011 not justifying applicability of Uma Devi for refusing the claim of regularization and will not the ratio apply in light of the rationale discussed in this judgment?
RAVI KUMAR
2026.02.10
15:38:20 +05'30'
21 OA 260/00654 of 2015
(x) Whether the judgments given in
paragraphs 7, 11, 12, 20, 21 of this
judgment pertaining to Against The
Judgment in vs Umadevi [(2006) 4 Scc 1] on 15 October, 2015, State of Tamilnadu v. A. Singmuthu (2017) 4 SCC, the Hon Apex Court, Upendra Singh vs The State of Bihar and Ors. on 23 February, 2018 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2356 OF 2018 not apply?
(xi) Whether the case of the applicants fails in any of the categories of appointment - illegal or irregular - in order to qualify for intelligible criteria with regards to conditions set out in the Kesari and Uma Devi judgments for grant of regularization and permanent employment?
(xii) Whether the case of the applicants qualifies for being one which was not considered due to sheer oversight as being one of conditions in the Kesari judgment which lays down that cases not considered due to sheer oversight may be considered given the fact that there are multitudes of others who were not RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 22 OA 260/00654 of 2015 found fit in similar circumstances as the applicants?
(xiii) Is the citation of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Parida vs State of Orissa and Ors., WP (C) No. 8340/2012 applicable at all in light of the citations given in this judgment?
(xiv) Is the citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nihal Singh and others vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2013) Vol 14 SCC, 65 in light of the discussions of the different facts on which it is based as per discussion in this judgment?
(xv) Whether the other citations as cited in the judgment pertaining to Amarkant Rai v/s State of Bihar, Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr v/s The Chief Election Commissioner apply in light of the discussions in paragraph?
(xvi) Can claims for regularization be made ad infinitum say after three decades of any scheme being formulated?. Is there any limit on time with regards to implementation at all?
(xvii) Is there any time limit for consideration of one time opportunity for any action RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 23 OA 260/00654 of 2015 lying with the party for any act - in this regularization by DoT/BSNL?
(xviii) Whether the citations given by the respondents have no force in deciding the plea of the applicants?
(xix) What is public good given the fact that the regularization will have to pass the test so as to be legal in the eyes of law in the context of the nature of the 'State' as represented by DoT or BSNL?
(xx) Whether conditions laid down in Article 16 of the Constitution limit grant of permanent employment even if through the rout of regularization?
9. It is not in dispute that w.e.f. 01.10.2000, the BSNL came into existence and it is a fact that, as per the Scheme issued by the DoT, casual workers engaged prior to 2000 were granted temporary status and consequent regularization by the BSNL by virtue of the orders of the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in many cases. Besides, we find that in paragraph 12 of the decision in the case of Dharma Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that supervening structural change cannot extinguish RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 24 OA 260/00654 of 2015 accrued claims of pending proceedings and that the successor body steps into the shoes of his predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime. In view of the above, we do not have any iota of doubt to hold that the BSNL owe a duty and responsibility to consider the regularization of the casual workers engaged prior to its formation.
10. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants were rendering service as casual labourers to the department since their engagement between, 1991-1997. When they came to know that despite the order of the higher authorities for regularizing, their cases were not considered, they submitted representation on 20.01.2014 and since no consideration was given they approached before this bench in OA No. 982/2015, which was disposed of on 07.01.2015. Since the respondents rejected their representation on 26.06.2015, although based on the scheme of regularization many similarly situated causal labourer throughout the country have been regularized in the BSNL, they filed present OA on 17.08.2015, i.e. within the stipulated RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 25 OA 260/00654 of 2015 period provided under section 21 of the AT, Act, 1985. It is stated both in course of hearing so also in the notes filed on 20.01.2026 that the applicants have been continuing for about 28 to 30 years as of date and, that, in a claim of regularization of service there is no question of delay and laches. According to the applicants, the reference made at points 1 and 2 are no more res integra in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), Shripal & Another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221, and Dharam Singh & Ors Vs State of U.P & Anr, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735. Similarly, insofar as point of reference No.3 is concerned, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Chander Mohan Negi and others Vs State of Himachal Paradesh & Ors, 2020 (1) OLR SC 865, Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in Orissa Water Supply and Sewerage board Vs Bijay Kumar Samal and others (W.A. No. 857 of 2024 disposed of on 30.07.2025, Rasmita Mishra Vs State of Odisha & Ors, W.P(C) No. 24653/2025, order of CAT, Cuttack Bench in OA RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 26 OA 260/00654 of 2015 No. 260/2023 (Manas Ranjan Nayak Vs UOI & Ors). In stating so, Ld. Counsel for the applicants has submitted that in view of the facts and law stated above, the other points of reference made become redundant. Hence, Ld. Counsel for the applicants has prayed that taking into consideration the sincere and loyal uninterrupted service rendered by the applicants and on the face of regularization of other similarly situated causal workers, denial of regularization of their service not only against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court but also will be gross discrimination and in violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is the contention of the Ld. counsel for the applicant that the decisions in the matter of regularization of casual/adhoc/daily wage/contractual rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court are in rem and not in personam, therefore, delay as pointed out in the point of reference needs to be decided affirmatively in favour of the applicants.
11. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents, based on the pleadings and documents placed in support of the plea RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 27 OA 260/00654 of 2015 that the present OA is being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed both on merit and limitation, at the first instance, drew our attention to various orders passed by this Bench in the matter of regularization, viz. OA 321/2018, 294/2018., 87/2019, 443/2020, 143/2022, 144/2022, 145/2022, 146/2022, 147/2022, 150/2017, 234/2020, 313/2019, 316/2019, 532/2022 to state that the aforesaid having been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, the present OA is also liable to be dismissed by applying the doctrine of stare decisis. According to him, the order of rejection dated 26.06.2015 cannot save the limitation since the consideration given to the representation on the strength of the order of this Bench, which was passed without considering the fact that the grievance of the applicant by that time had already attracted the law of limitation. Therefore, the point of reference as to whether this case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay needs to be decided alike the aforesaid OAs.
12. Insofar as merit of the matter is concerned, it is stated that the applicants have suppressed the award dated RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 28 OA 260/00654 of 2015 07.12.2012 of the Learned Industrial Tribunal in I.D. case No. 24/2000 filed by the applicants through their Union wherein their claim for regularization was rejected. It is stated that forum shopping and repeatative litigation constitute abuse of process warranting dismissal at the threshold and, in such a scenario when the prayer of the applicant was rejected earlier, resorting to forum shopping by invoking jurisdiction of this Tribunal being abuse of process of law, this OA is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the applicants were never recruited through a process of selection that too against any sanctioned post. They were engaged either on casual basis or through contractor and, thus, they do not have any substantive right to claim regularization and the buttress the stand, Ld. Counsel for the respondents has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.D.Sharma Vs SAIL, Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2008 dated 09.07.2008 and in the case of Municipal Council Rep. by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District A.P. Vs K.Jayaram & Ors etc, SLP(C) Nos.17711-17713 of 2019 dated 16.12.2025, and, accordingly, RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 29 OA 260/00654 of 2015 prayed that the present OA is liable to be dismissed both on merit as well as on delay and laches.
13. We have examined the earlier cases relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, referred to above. We find that in the present case, the impugned order is of dated 26.06.2015 and the present OA is filed on 27.08.2015, which is within the limitation period of one year provided under the AT Act, 1985. We also find that in none of those cases earlier decided by the Bench, relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents, referred to above, no such order of rejection was there, which was challenged, as in the present case. Even though, in argumendo it is said that the present case also suffers from delay and laches, for raising the claim of regularization, this points needs to be adjudicated/decided on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court stood as on the date. Further, it is noteworthy that the matter was under internal correspondence between the authorities of the BSNL relating to regularization of the applicants. When others were regularized but the applicant could not be, they submitted representation seeking RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 30 OA 260/00654 of 2015 regularization and no consideration having given to their request, they approached this Bench. As per the order of this Bench, the BSNL considered their representation but rejected the same after which they filed the instant OA. Thus, the delay, if any, occasioned, was not intentional or deliberate on the part of the applicants but for the precise reason of the long history of engagement and the internal correspondence among the authorities of the BSNL. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) have also held that the Hon'ble High Court was obliged to examine the legality of the States stance in refusing sanction despite perennial need and long continuance of the applicants therein rather than throwing the matter on mere technicality. Hence, the point of delay as raised by the respondents has no application in the instant case.
14. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court was of dated 09.07.2008 in Civil Appeal No. 4270 of 2008 [K.D.Sharma Vs SAIL]. We find that thereafter, in the matter of regularization of casual worker/daily wager/contractual/ RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 31 OA 260/00654 of 2015 adhoc came up for consideration, even after the decision in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka And ... Vs Umadevi And Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, which are discussed below.
15. In the case of case of Chander Mohan Negi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2020 (1) OLR -SC-865, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
"13. It is true that in the initial schemes notified by the Government there was a condition that such appointees should not seek regularisation/absorption but at the same time for no fault of them, they cannot be denied regularisation/absorption. It is in view of the requirement of the State, their services were extended from time to time and now all the appointees have completed more than 15 years of service. For majority of the appointed teachers under the various schemes benefit was already extended and some left over candidates were denied on account of interim orders passed by this Court. With regard to Primary Assistant Teachers, it is stated that all the candidates have completed Special Teacher Training Qualifying Condensed Course and also had obtained special JBT certificate after 5 years' continuous service in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Education Code 1985. The judgments relied on by learned counsel Sri Prashant Bhushan also would not render any assistance to the case of the appellants herein for the reason that there was unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court and further having regard to explanation offered by the State about the need of framing schools which were vacant for a very long time, having regard to topographical such policies to meet the immediate requirement to fill up single teacher conditions, which is not even controverted by way of any rejoinder before circumstances of these cases, we are of the that the view expressed by this Court in the judgments relied on RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 32 OA 260/00654 of 2015 cannot be applied to the facts of the case on hand. All the appointed candidates are working for the meagre salaries pursuant to schemes notified by the Government. Except the vague submission that such schemes were framed only to make back door entries, there is no material placed on record to buttress such submission. Further it is also to be noted that though such schemes were notified as early as in 2003, nobody has questioned such policies and appointments was filed in the year 2012 without even impleading the appointees as party respondents. In the writ petition there was no rejoinder filed by the writ petitioners disputing the averments of the State as stated in the reply affidavit. Having regard to nature of such appointments, appointments made as per policies cannot be termed as illegal. Having regard to material placed before this Court and having regard to reasons recorded in the impugned order by the High Court, we are of the view that no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court."
16. In the case of Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 33 OA 260/00654 of 2015 principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.
• Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.
• Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
17. In the case of Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another, (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025), Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-11, 16 to 20 of the said judgment held as follows:-
"11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to nonsuit 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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 34 OA 260/00654 of 2015 appointments and irregular engagements and does not 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, Ghaziabad 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) 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 practices.
15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records despite directions to do so-allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30'
35 OA 260/00654 of 2015 particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite "temporary" employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs:
"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.
xxx xxx xxx
25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade longterm obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:
• Misuse of "Temporary" Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as "temporary"
or "contractual," even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 36 OA 260/00654 of 2015 dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.
• Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:
Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances."
xxx xxx xxx
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 RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30'
37 OA 260/00654 of 2015 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 organise work on lawful lines.
18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that "adhocism" 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 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 regularisations, we issue the following directions:
i. Regularization and creation of Supernumerary posts:
All appellants shall stand regularized with effect from 24.04.2002, the date on which the High Court directed a fresh recommendation by the Commission and a fresh decision by the State on sanctioning posts for the appellants. For this purpose, the State and the successor establishment (U.P. Education Services Selection Commission) shall create supernumerary posts in the corresponding cadres, Class-III (Driver or equivalent) and Class-IV (Peon/Attendant/Guard or equivalent) without any caveats or preconditions. On regularization, each appellant shall be placed at not less than the minimum of the regular pay-scale for the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 38 OA 260/00654 of 2015 post, with protection of last-drawn wages if higher and the appellants shall be entitled to the subsequent increments in the pay scale as per the pay grade. For seniority and promotion, service shall count from the date of regularization as given above.
ii. Financial consequences and arrears: Each appellant shall be paid as arrears the full difference between (a) the pay and admissible allowances at the minimum of the regular pay-level for the post from time to time, and
(b) the amounts actually paid, for the period from 24.04.2002 until the date of regularization /retirement/death, as the case may be. Amounts already paid under previous interim directions shall be so adjusted. The net arrears shall be released within three months and if in default, the unpaid amount shall carry compound interest at 6% per annum from the date of default until payment.
iii. Any appellant who has already retired shall be granted regularization with effect from 24.04.2002 until the date of superannuation for pay fixation, arrears under clause (ii), and recalculation of pension, gratuity and other terminal dues. The revised pension and terminal dues shall be paid within three months of this Judgement.
iv. Deceased appellants: In the case of Appellant No. 5 and any other appellant who has died during pendency, his/her legal representatives on record shall be paid the arrears under clause (ii) up to the date of death, together with all terminal/retiral dues recalculated consistently with clause (i), within three months of this Judgement.
v. Compliance affidavit: The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, or the Secretary of the U.P. Education Services Selection Commission or the prevalent competent authority, shall file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within four months of this Judgement.
20. We have framed these directions comprehensively because, case after case, orders of this Court in such matters have been met with fresh technicalities, rolling "reconsiderations," and administrative drift which further prolongs the insecurity for those who have already RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 39 OA 260/00654 of 2015 laboured for years on daily wages. Therefore, we have learned that Justice in such cases cannot rest on simpliciter directions, but it demands imposition of clear duties, fixed timelines, and verifiable compliance. As a constitutional employer, the State is held to a higher standard and therefore it must organise its perennial workers on a sanctioned footing, create a budget for lawful engagement, and implement judicial directions in letter and spirit. Delay to follow these obligations is not mere negligence but rather it is a conscious method of denial that erodes livelihoods and dignity for these workers. The operative scheme we have set here comprising of creation of supernumerary posts, full regularization, subsequent financial benefits, and a sworn affidavit of compliance, is therefore a pathway designed to convert rights into outcomes and to reaffirm that fairness in engagement and transparency in administration are not matters of grace, but obligations under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India."
18. Observations and directions made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (supra) has already been quoted in para 17 above.
19 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 9 SCC 327/2024 (1) SCR 1230, observed and held as follows:-
"2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.03.2016, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42688 of 2001 and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42692 of 2001, whereby the writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, dated 21.11.2001 were dismissed. The Tribunal's judgment negated the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 40 OA 260/00654 of 2015 appellants' plea for regularization and absorption into the posts of 'Accounts Clerk' against which they were temporarily appointed. Despite being appointed for what was termed a temporary or scheme-based engagement, the appellants have been continuously working in these positions from 1992 till the present, spanning a period exceeding 25 years.
xxx xxx xxx
4. The appellants have approached this Court arguing that the High Court erred in its judgment by failing to recognize the substantive nature of their duties, which align with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were originally appointed for. Furthermore, their promotion by a regularly constituted Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they underwent, and the continuous nature of their service for over a quarter of a century underscored their argument for regularization and that the High Court has incorrectly applied the principles from the case of Uma Devi (supra) to their situation.
5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence of employment and the rights thereof cannot bemerely determined by the initial terms of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees, performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than 25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a reconsideration of their employment status.
xxx xxx xxx
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 41 OA 260/00654 of 2015 considering certain appointments 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. Paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi (supra) case is reproduced hereunder:
"53. One aspect needs to be clarified. There may be cases where irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) as explained in S.V. Narayanappa [(1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR 1967 SC 1071] , R.N. Nanjundappa [(1972) 1 SCC 409 : (1972) 2 SCR 799] and B.N. Nagarajan [(1979) 4 SCC 507 :
1980 SCC (L&S) 4 : (1979) 3 SCR 937] and referred to in para 15 above, of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more but without the intervention of orders of the courts or of tribunals. The question of regularisation of the services of such employees may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by this Court in the cases above referred to and in the light of this judgment. In that context, the Union of India, the State Governments and their instrumentalities should take steps to regularise as a one-time measure, the services of such irregularly appointed, who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts but not under cover of orders of the courts or of tribunals and should further ensure that regular recruitments are undertaken to fill those vacant sanctioned posts that require to be filled up, in cases where temporary employees or daily wagers are being now employed. The process must be set in motion within six months from this date. We also clarify that regularisation, if any already made, but not sub judice, need not be reopened based on this judgment, but there should be no further bypassing of the constitutional requirement and regularising or making permanent, those not duly appointed as per the constitutional scheme."
8. In light of the reasons recorded above, this Court finds merit in the appellants' arguments and holds that RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 42 OA 260/00654 of 2015 their service conditions, as evolved over time, warrant a reclassification from temporary to regular status. The failure to recognize the substantive nature of their roles and their continuous service akin to permanent employees runs counter to the principles of equity, fairness, and the intent behind employment regulations."
20. Ld. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the decision rendered on 16.12.2025 in SLP(C) Nos.17711-17713 of 2019 [Municipal Council Rep. by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District A.P. Vs K.Jayaram & Ors etc], relevant portion of which is reproduced below:
"9. The Court would pause here to indicate that it is not anybody's case that the mode of employment through a contractor itself was illegal or there was any illegality in the terms and conditions of the contract so as to make it ultra vires any constitutional provision or to make it discriminatory, and further there has been no challenge to such contract or any of the terms stipulated in the contract. Another issue on facts, which has been addressed by learned counsel for the respondents is that the respondents could not have been exploited by the parties and the fact that they were the same persons being sent, though through different contractors itself shows that the relationship was direct and only a sham camouflage was created; that of a contractor being the intermediary. To this, in our considered view, the answer may not be in clear black and white terms and is still a grey area for the reason that even if the respondents were the same persons who actually worked for the appellant, there can be instances where the new contractor, to maintain continuity and to ensure that there is no complaint from the employer, the appellant in the present case, continues with the same persons who were already employed and were working with the appellant. Thus, there is argument for and against such stand, which we RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 43 OA 260/00654 of 2015 will not dwell on any further. Another issue which has been flagged by learned senior counsel for the respondents is that the respondents being in the position they are, and the relief given being the minimum of the time scale of the pay attached to the regular post cannot be termed as giving them something which was not due or something excessive, for ultimately they also have a family to support and they are also performing the job which is performed by people on the regular establishment. We have absolutely no doubt in our mind that such issue raised by learned senior counsel is of relevance, but the Court feels that the mode of contractual employment, that too, by a contractor and not directly by the employer will have to be seen in a different light in the eyes of law. If all such distinctions between a regular employee and such contractual employees is not made, then the basic concept of hiring through various modes and in different capacity would lose its purpose and sanctity and ultimately everybody would be getting exactly the same benefit. This cannot be permitted in law for the reason that employment under a State entity is a public asset and every citizen of the country has a right to apply for it. In a regular employment, directly made by the said State entity, there are safeguards to ensure that the system of employment/engagement is transparent and fulfills a minimum criteria and is open to all eligible persons and a mode/procedure is adopted for ultimately choosing the right person. When employees/workmen are taken through a contractor, it is the absolute discretion of the contractor as to whom and through which mode he would choose such persons to be sent to the principal. This is where the difference lies, which is a very valid distinction in law. The reason why there are safeguards in regular appointment is that there should not be any favoritism or other extraneous consideration where persons, only on merit, are recruited through a fully transparent procedure known in law. If the persons who are employed through a contractor, and have come to work, are given equal benefit and status as a regular employee, it would amount to giving premium and sanction to a process which is totally arbitrary as there is no mode prescribed in any contract as to how the contractor would employ or choose the persons who are to be sent, except for the basic qualification, i.e., knowledge in the field for which they are required. The judgment/ order relied RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 44 OA 260/00654 of 2015 upon by learned counsel for the appellant aptly covers the field in the present case. The judgment cited by learned senior counsel for the respondents is basically different on facts for the reason that there the contractual employment was directly by the principal and in that background contractual workers have been regularized.
10. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and for the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the High Court is set aside and the orders of the Tribunal stand restored.
11. Having passed the order, we feel that sometimes justice is required to be tempered with mercy as human factors cannot be totally lost sight of. In such view of the matter, we would require the appellant to look into whether the jobs which were being done by the respondents, in the background that they have not been disengaged or returned to the contractor on the ground of being unsatisfactory, having uninterrupted service under the appellant for decades can be regularized on posts, which prima facie appears to be perpetual in nature. We make it clear that this direction is limited for the purposes of the present case only as it has been passed in the special facts and circumstances of the present case and shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case. We expect the appellant to take a compassionate and sympathetic view in the matter."
21. We find that the issue decided in the case of K.Jayaram (supra) relied on by the respondents' counsel came up for consideration in the case of Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 129. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.01. 2026 decided the matter affirmatively in favour of regularization observing/holding as under:
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 45 OA 260/00654 of 2015 "11. At the outset, we find it necessary to express our disapproval of the manner in which the High Court has approached the present lis. The controversy before the Court was not one of mere acquiescence or implied waiver of rights. The High Court, in our view, has proceeded on a mechanical application of precedents without engaging with the core constitutional issues involved, thereby reducing the dispute to one of acceptance of contractual terms, divorced from its larger constitutional context.
11.1. This Court has consistently held that the State, being a model employer, is saddled with a heightened obligation in the discharge of its functions. A model employer is expected to act with high probity, fairness and candour, and bears a social responsibility to treat its employees in a manner that preserves their dignity.
The State cannot be permitted to exploit its employees or to take advantage of their vulnerability, helplessness or unequal bargaining position.
11.2. It therefore follows that the State is required to exercise heightened caution in its role as an employer, the constitutional mandate casting upon it a strict obligation to act as a model employer, an obligation from which no exception can be countenanced.
xxx xxx xxx 11.5. The consistent case of the appellants has been that the respondent-State's refusal to grant regularization is arbitrary and therefore warrants judicial interference. Article 14 of the Constitution casts a negative obligation upon the State to treat all persons equally, and arbitrariness, being antithetical to the equality principle, is proscribed as violative of Article 14. 11.6. The Constitution Bench in Basheshar Nath v. Comm. Income Tax, long ago clarified that fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution are incapable of waiver. Consequently, if the action of the respondent- State is found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the mere fact that the appellants' engagement was governed by contractual terms and conditions cannot be construed as a waiver of their fundamental rights."
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 46 OA 260/00654 of 2015
22. Precedents: A source of "law" under the Constitution of India Article 141 of the Constitution lays down that the "law declared" by the Supreme Court is binding upon all the courts with the territory of India. The "law declared" has to be construed as a principle of law that emanates from a judgment, or an interpretation of a law or judgment by the Supreme Court, upon which, the case is decided. Hence, it flows from the above that the "law declared" is the principle culled out on the reading of a judgment as a whole in the light of the questions raised, upon which the case is decided. (See: Fida Hussain v. Moradabad Development Authority (2011) 12 SCC 615; Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat (1987) 1 SCC 213; and CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 4 SCC 363). Further A subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. Rule of precedent is an important aspect of legal certainty in the rule of law. See: (i) Honda Siel Power Products vs. CIT, Delhi, (2007) 12 SCC 596 (ii) S.I. Rooplal vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi, AIR 2000 SC 594 (Three Judge Bench).
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 47 OA 260/00654 of 2015
23. In the case titled Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"8. Under the constitutional scheme as framed for the judiciary, the Supreme Court and the High Courts, both are courts of record. The High Court is not a court "subordinate" to the Supreme Court. xxxxxxx The High Court exercises power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over all subordinate courts and tribunals; the Supreme Court has not been conferred with any power of superintendence. If the Supreme Court and the High Courts both were to be thought of as brothers in the administration of justice, the High Court has larger jurisdiction but the Supreme Court still remains the elder brother. There are a few provisions which give an edge, and assign a superior place in the hierarchy, to the Supreme Court over High Courts. So far as the appellate jurisdiction is concerned, in all civil and criminal matters, the Supreme Court is the highest and the ultimate court of appeal. It is the final interpreter of the law. Under Article 139-A, the Supreme Court may transfer any case pending before one High Court to another High Court or may withdraw the case to itself. Under Article 141 the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts, including High Courts, within the territory of India. Under Article 144 all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India -- and that would include High Courts as well -- shall act in aid of the Supreme Court."
24. The distinction between operation of delay and laches to judgments delivered in rem and in personam is lucidly captured in State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva, 2015 (1) SCC Page 347 and the same has been referred and followed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 48 OA 260/00654 of 2015 subsequent judgment passed in the case of Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 225. Relevant extract of which is being reproduced herein below:-
"13. We may hasten to add that these principles may not, however, apply to judgments which are delivered in rem. The State and its instrumentalities are expected in such category of cases to themselves, extend the benefit of judicial pronouncements to all similarly placed employees without forcing each person to individually knock the doors of Courts. This distinction between operation of delay and latches to judgments delivered in rem and in personam, is lucidly captured in UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, laying down that;
"22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.
22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognised exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30'
49 OA 260/00654 of 2015 judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fencesitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma v. Union of India, (1997) 6 SCC 721). On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."
25. Similar view has been taken by this High Court in CWPOA NO.5741 of 2020, titled as Dhanveer Singh vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 29.08.2023. In CWPOA No.2343 of 2020, titled as Vikram Singh vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, and other connected matters, decided on 09.11.2023, the High Court has observed as under:-
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 50 OA 260/00654 of 2015
23. In so far as the plea of limitation/delay and laches r is concerned, the same is also liable to be rejected. As has already been stated supra, the plea of petitioners is based on discrimination which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Thimmappa and others vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and another, 2001 (2) SCC 259, wherein, it has been categorically laid down that if there is an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India then petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
xxx xxx xxx
25. For delayed regularization, petitioners cannot be blamed as the same was to be done by the respondent-
Corporation. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.2735 of 2010, titled as Rakesh Kumar vs. State of HP and others alongwith connected matters decided on 28.07.2010." It is also apt to record that Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.5806 of 2024, titled Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Others vs. Vikram Singh & others, laying challenge to the decision in Vikram Singh's case (supra), was dismissed by the Supreme Court of India on 15.03.2024."
26. The decision of Hon'ble Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency because it is assumed that what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is, in fact, the law from inception. Prospective over-ruling is a part of the principles of constitutional canon of interpretation and can be resorted to while superseding law declared by it earlier vide M.A. Murthy Vs State of Karnataka & Ors, 2003 (7) SCC 517. RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 51 OA 260/00654 of 2015
27. In view of the above, the present case is to be covered and governed by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors (supra), being a latest decision dated 30.01.2026 than the decision relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in the case of Municipal Council Rep. by its Commissioner Nandyal Municipality, Kurnool District A.P. Vs K.Jayaram & Ors (supra). The outcome of the discussions made above is that this Tribunal is obliged to decide a matter based on the latest law decided in rem by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thus, on the face of regularization of casual labourers and by virtue of such long continuance of the applicants, on the face of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, they got a right to be regularized, which is also fundamental to them and doctrine of acquiescence and waiver cannot take out such right due to delay or their engagement in casual of through contractor or of that matter they lost the ID case. Further, it is not in dispute that as per the provision of AT Act, the applicant has got a right to approach before this Bench. Therefore, earlier they RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 52 OA 260/00654 of 2015 approached the Industrial Tribunal cannot be a ground to reject this matter on the principle of forum shopping as raised by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the points of references are answered as under:
(a) In view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra), and detailed discussions made in paragraphs 9 above, the reference made in point nos. (i) (ii), (iii) and (v) are decided affirmatively to the effect that the BSNL is obliged to regularize the services of the applicants after it came into effect in 2000 and mandamus also can be issued to BSNL to the above effect.
(b) In terms of the detailed discussions made in paragraph 13 above and taking into the law laid down by the RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30'
53 OA 260/00654 of 2015 Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh (supra), M.A. Murthy (supra) Bhola Nath (supra), Fida Hussain (supra), and Ambica Quarry Works (supra), law of limitation as stretched cannot be made applicable to debar the applicants their legitimate right for regularization. The point of reference at (iv) is answered accordingly.
(c) In view of the detailed discussions made above and the reply to reference point Nos. (i) to (v) and the settled principle of law that the latest law of the Hon'ble Apex Court will govern the field, the rest of the point of references at (vi) to (xx) became redundant and are answered in favour of the applicants.
RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30' 54 OA 260/00654 of 2015
28. In view of the discussions made above, we concur with the stand and view point taken by the Hon'ble the then Member (Judicial) and, the case of the Applicants are liable to be regularized as per the conditions stipulated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Dharam Singh (supra) and Bhola Nath (supra). The Respondents/BSNL authorities are to issue consequential order to the said effect within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
29. In the result, the OA stands allowed to the extent stated above. MA, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) (Pramod Kumar Das) (Jayesh V Bhairavia) Member (Judl.) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) RK/PS RAVI KUMAR 2026.02.10 15:38:20 +05'30'