Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Anirudha Dalabehera vs Bsnl on 27 November, 2025
1 M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022
O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022
(O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022)
Reserved on 26.11.2025 Pronounced on 27.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE SHRI SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
Anirudha Dalabehera, aged about 59 years, S/o-
Late Lambodhar Dalabehera, presently residing
At-Telephone Exchange, Gandhi Nagar
At/Po/Ps/Dist-Rayagada, Pin-765001.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India, represented Secretary-cum-
Chairman, through Govt. of India,
Telecommunication and IT, 20 Ashoka Road,
Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director (CMD), Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited, 3rd Floor, BSNL
Bhawan, Janapath, New Delhi-110001
3. The Principal General Manager-cum-Director,
HR (Establishment), BSNL, Corporate Office,
Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Harischandra Mathur
Lane, Janpath, New Delhi-110001.
4. The Chief General Manager, Telecom Bhawan,
Odisha Circle, Unit 2, Market Building. In front
of IG Park, Ashok Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Dist-
Khurda Odisha-751009
5. General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL,
Koraput Division, Koraput, PO/PS/Dist-
Koraput. Odisha-764020.
......Respondents
For the Applicant : Mr. S.K.Ojha, Counsel
RAVI KUMAR
2025.11.26 17:12:13
+05'30'
2 M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022
O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022
For the Respondents : Mr. K.C.Kanungo, Counsel
ORDER
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
According to the applicant, he was engaged on casual basis under the respondents on 01.03.1985 and respondents illegally and arbitrarily dispensed with his engagement on 31.12.2020. He has filed this OA on 29.11.2022 praying for the relief as under:
"i) Let the action of the Respondents be declared as illegal and arbitrary.
ii) Let direction be issued to the respondents either to lift the abeyance order vide letter dtd.04.03.2004 (Annex.A/7) or implement the order of regularization vide letter dtd.03.10.2003 extending the equal treatment as has been indicated in Para-4 above;
iii) Let a declaration be made that the abeyance order dtd.04.03.2004 (Annex.A/7) issued by the Corporate Office is no more a bar in regularizing the applicant against the post of Asst. Telecom Technician (ATT),
iv) Let a direction be issued to the respondents to regularize the applicant against the post of Assistant Telecom Technician (ATT) (previously named as Regular Mazdoor) with effect from the respective date of his joining in service and he may be given all the consequential service benefits attached to the said post.
v) Let a direction be issued to the Respondents to brought back the applicant to his engagement with the order of regularization;
vi) Let the applicant be granted with any other relief(s) he is entitled to and also pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice."
RAVI KUMAR 2025.11.26 17:12:13 +05'30' 3 M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022 O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022
2. The respondents filed their counter contesting the case of the applicant. According to them, the applicant has not approached this Bench with clean hands because he, along with others, had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No. 3140/2010 praying to regularize their services, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2010 with the following observations:
"The petitioners claimed to be Casual labourers under the establishment of Bharat Sanchar Nigar Ltd., Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar. Their grievance in this Writ Petition is that though they are continuing as Casual labourers for quite few years, no action has been taken to regularize their services. But then law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi and others reported In AIR 2006 SC 1806 this court cannot direct the management to regularize the workmen.
2. Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel appearing for opposite parties has no objection if the matter is disposed of.
3. In view of the aforesaid clear position of law, this court disposes of this Writ Petition with observation that it is left upon the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar to consider the case of the petitioners who are working as casual labourers for regularization taking into consideration their long stretch of service, as expeditious as possible."
3. But, the applicant did not take any action thereafter, if at all his request was not acceded to and woke from the slumber by filing this OA only on 29.11.2022 praying for his regularization and, thus, this OA is hit by the law of limitation. RAVI KUMAR 2025.11.26 17:12:13 +05'30' 4 M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022 O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022 It is also stated by the Ld. Counsel for the respondents in course of hearing that similar OAs filed by the other similarly situated persons had also been dismissed by this Bench and the present one being same and similar, this OA is also liable to be dismissed. Lastly, it was contended in course of hearing that finally the prayer of the applicant in this OA is for regularization of his service, which matter having been set at rest, by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No. 3140/2010, the present OA though in different form but in effect is with the prayer of regularization being hit by the law of res judicata is liable to be dismissed.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant has submitted that OA No. 122/2020 filed by one such similarly situated employee was dismissed by this Bench on 17.04.2025 on the ground of delay and laches. The applicant in the said OA had challenged the said order of this Bench before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 3140/2010 and the Hon'ble High Court quashed the order of this Bench and remitted the matter before the Bench for reconsideration and, therefore, delay and RAVI KUMAR 2025.11.26 17:12:13 +05'30' 5 M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022 O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022 laches cannot stand as a bar for granting the relief, if the applicant is otherwise entitled to the same as per rules and law. Hence, he has stated that since both on fact and law the applicant is entitle to the relief, the OA be allowed.
5. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute and cannot be disputed that the applicant had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in WP(C) No. 3140/2010 with prayer to direct the respondents to regularize his service. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in its order dated 04.03.2010 held that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others Vrs. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, no direction can be issued to the management to regularize the workmen. In this OA, the applicant's prayer is to direct the respondents either to lift the abeyance order dtd. 04.03.2004 or implement the order of regularization dtd. 03.10.2003 and, as a consequence, direction be issued to bring the applicant back to engagement and regularize his service. We find that though the order dated 04.03.2004 and RAVI KUMAR 2025.11.26 17:12:13 +05'30' 6 M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022 O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022 03.10.2003 were available; they should have brought the same to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa while praying for their regularization, which prayer was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa on 04.03.2010. Thus, it appears that the applicant has filed this OA praying for the relief, in an in an direct manner, which he is not entitled to directly in law. It is also noteworthy that law is well settled that res judicata can operate if a subsequent case is filed with the same prayer after a previous case was disposed of as "infructuous" or for similar reasons, provided the earlier decision was on the merits, final, and involved the same parties and substantially the same issues. The principle's goal is to give finality to court decisions and prevent endless litigation, so even if a case was dismissed for being infructuous, it can still bar a new suit on the same matter. Further, "Henderson Principle" was approvingly referred to and applied by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. Vs Nawab Hussain, (1997) 2 SCC 806, as the underlying principle for res-judicata and constructive res- judicata for assuring finality to litigation. The 'Henderson RAVI KUMAR 2025.11.26 17:12:13 +05'30' 7 M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022 O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022 Principle' is a foundational doctrine in common law that addresses the issue of multiplicity in litigation. It embodies the broader concept of procedural fairness, abuse of process and judicial efficiency by mandating that all claims and issues that could and ought to have been raised in a previous litigation should not be relitigated in subsequent proceedings. Hence, in view of the peculiar facts and law, we are of the considered view that this OA is hit by the principle of res judicata.
6. The law of limitation also applies to this case as stated by the respondents cannot be overruled by taking into consideration the stand of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant that similar OA No. 122/2020 (Gouri Shankar Das & Ors Vs UOI & Ors) filed by similarly situated persons was dismissed by this Bench vide order dated 17.04.2025, which order was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 16688/2025 vide order dated 30.07.2025 and remitted the matter for reconsideration because, in the said case, the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa quashed the order of the Bench on the sole ground that the delay in filing the said OA before RAVI KUMAR 2025.11.26 17:12:13 +05'30' 8 M.A.No. 260/00636 of 2022 O.A.No. 260/00532 of 2022 this Bench was earlier condoned, which is not the case in hand. Therefore, the said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa has no application to the present case. It is also noteworthy that many OAs filed by similarly situated persons, i.e. OA Nos. 580, 582, 588, 589, 590 of 2023 and OA Nos. 612, 623, 629 and 630 of 2023 had already been dismissed by the Bench vide orders dated 01.05.2025 and 02.05.2025 respectively on delay and laches and, we see, no such distinguished feature to take a different view than the view already taken by the Bench.
7. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, we find that this OA is hit by law of res judicata as also limitation to the fullest extent thereby prohibiting judicial intervention in the merit of the matter. Accordingly, this OA stands dismissed and MA, if any, pending is also dismissed. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)
RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2025.11.26 17:12:13
+05'30'