Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Kandi Apparao vs Bharat Sanchal Nigam Limited on 7 August, 2025
1
OA NO.321 OF 2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK
O.A.No. 260/00321 of 2019
Reserved on: 06.08.2025 Pronounced on : 07.08.2025
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Pramod Kumar Das, Member (A)
Kandi Apparao, aged about 49 years, Son of Late K.
Suryanarayan Rao, At/P.O.-Ranitenta, P.S.-Paralakhemundi,
District-Gajapati,
At present continuing as Casual Labourer under Sub-Divisional
Officer, Telephone, Paralakhemundi, District-Gajapati, Pin-
761201.
..... Applicant
-Versus-
1. Union of India, Represented through its Secretary-cum-Chairman,
Telecommunication and I.T.-20, Ashoka Road, Sanchar Bhawan,
New Delhi, PIN-110001;
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BSNL, Bharat Sanchar
Bhawan, Harischandra Mathur Lane, Janapath, New Delhi-
110001;
3. Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar,PIN-751009;
4. General Manager, Telecommunication, District. Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited, Berhampur, District-Ganjam, PIN-761001;
5. Sub-Divisional Officer (Telephone), Paralakhemundi, At/P.O./P.S-
Paralakhemundi, District-Gajapati, Pin-761201;
......Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. A. Swain, Counsel
For the respondents : Mr. K.C. Kanungo, J.J.Bramha, Counsels
Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera,
o=Central Administrative Tribunal
Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL,
Behera [email protected]
Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30'
2
OA NO.321 OF 2019
O R D E R
SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The instant Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
"The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to extend temporary status in favour of the applicant and regularize his service taking into consideration of his services in retrospective effect."
2. The case of the Applicant in brief is that he was engaged as a contract labourer through various contractors and has been continuing under the Respondents-Department as a Casual Mazdoor since 1992. While continuing as such, the Department of Telecommunication was named and styled as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (a Government of India Enterprise). According to him, Ministry of Labour in exercise of power conferred under Clause(d) of sub-Section 1 and sub-Section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 referred the dispute regarding regularization to C.G.I.T.-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication. The C.G.I.T.-cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar after adjudication of the matter for consideration of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 3 OA NO.321 OF 2019 regularization so far 455 workers asked the first party Management to formulate the method/ prescribed modalities for regularization and the Management agreed to that. Out of 455 workers, 274 workers list given by the Union and the Management is asked to complete the process of regularization as per its norms and prescribed modalities preferably within a period of six months to safeguard the further interest of the workers. The award was passed on 11.9.2006 in Industrial dispute case No.24 of 2000. The Divisional Engineer, O.F.C. (MTCE) ETR, BPR (GM) dated 04.12.2009 instructed to the Department to implement the interim order passed in SLP (Civil) No.9790 of 2009 for grant of temporary status to the eligible workman dispute under DGMTCE, FTR, Bhubaneswar. Subsequently in the year 2017-1018 the Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Sheo Narain Nagar & others versus State of Utter Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC L & S-524 and in the case of Narendra Kumar Tiwari and Others etc. v. State of Jharkhand, categorically directed to the authorities to complete the process of regularization, those who are rendering 10 years or 3 years of service even in contract, casual and ad-hoc services under the employer. Even the applicant is continuing and raising his voice by meeting personally, he has been Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 4 OA NO.321 OF 2019 assured but no steps for his regularization has been taken although he is entitled to be regularized in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka- vs-Uma Devi, 2006 (4) SCC 1.
3. The Respondents have filed their counter, stating therein that this O.A. has been filed after a lapse of more than nine years of the cause of action arisen therefrom, and hence is hit by law of limitation since filing of repeated representations by the Applicant does not cure the delay and latches. Further, it is stated that Applicant has not approached with clean hands. It is stated that the Applicant had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa vide W.P. (C) No. 3139 of 2010 along with 22 others ( Applicant was at Sl No. 17) with selfsame prayer. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court at the admission stage vide order dtd. 04.03.2010 in view of the law laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka and others vrs. Umadevi and others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 with an observation that the court cannot direct the management to regularise the workmen but it is left upon the management of BSNL, Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar to consider the case of the petitioners therein. The said order has attained its finality. Thus the present O.A. is hit by the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 5 OA NO.321 OF 2019 law of Res-Judicata and is liable to be dismissed inlimine. It is further stated that Odisha Door Sanchar Asthayi Mazdoor Sangha Union (In short ODAMS) (in which the Applicant was also a member of the said Union) earlier had filed a claim petition before the CGIT cum Labour Court, Bhubaneswar vide ID Case No.24/2000 and the same was rejected by the learned CGIT vide Award dt. 07.12.2012 even by taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (surpa) and the said Award Dt. 07.12.2012 was not challenged before the higher forum and thus, attained its finality. To gain strength that this O.A is laible to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches/limitation, the Respondents relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
"i. D.C.S. Negi -vs- UOI & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No. 7956/2011 CC No. 3709/2011 ii. State of Tripura & Ors. -vs- Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors. [2014 ( SCC (L&S) 2 (300)] iii. BSNL-vs-Teja Singh [SLP (C) No.7803/2006. iv. Upendra Singh -vs- State of Bihar & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.2356 of 2018] v. Ajay Kumar Behera -vs- State of Odisha & Ors.
[WP(C) No. 15392/2011 of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa."
vi. The Govt. of India & Anr. -vs- P.Venkatesh [ Civil Appeal No.2425 of 2019] Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 6 OA NO.321 OF 2019
4. Though the instant OA is filed beyond the period as provided under Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, no separate application has been filed seeking condonation of delay, as envisaged under statute.
5. We have heard and considered the submissions of both sides and perused the records vis-à-vis the decisions relied on.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that similar matters came up before this Tribunal in O.A. No. 294 of 2018 and this Tribunal vide order dated 05.01.2024 had dismissed the said O.A. on the ground of limitation. The present case being same and similar both on facts and issues, this O.A. is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches, although learned counsel for the applicant refuted the above submission. We have examined the present case with reference to the case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents.
The relevant portion of the order dated 05.01.2024 passed in O.A. No. 294 of 2018 is quoted below:
"......5. Admitted fact of the matter is that the applicant was engaged as a casual mazdoor and subsequently was disengaged from service. When his case for re-engagement was not considered he filed OA No. 471/2000, which was disposed of on 01.01.2002 (Annexure A/1) with the following directions:Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera
Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 7 OA NO.321 OF 2019 "9. In the earlier batch of OAs the learned counsel for the petitioners had filed a set of documents after the hearing was over. Even though those documents were not taken into consideration in the earlier cases because the respondents did not have any opportunity to re-act to these documents, the Tribunal noted in their order dated 10.8.2000 that in letter dated 7.1.1993 it has been mentioned that according to Department of Telecommunication's letter dated 8.4.1991 casual workers engaged before 7.6.1988 and who are in service as on 8.4.1991 may be considered for regular appointment to Group-
D post. This letter dated 8.4. 1991 had not been filed in the earlier cases nor is it before us in the present cases. In view of this, it is not possible to know the exact contents of the letter dated 8.4.1991. We, however, make it clear that if the applicants are entitled to re- engagement in terms of the letter dated 8.4.1991 and subsequent regular appointment, the respondents will consider these two applicants for the above benefits."
6. As per the above direction of the Tribunal, the persons who were in the service as on 8.4.1991 were to be considered for regular appointment against Group D' posts. It is the case of the applicant that he was to be considered for re- engagement in terms of the letter dated 8.4.1991 followed by subsequent regular appointment. As observed in the above order, the letter dated 8.4.1991 was not placed before the Tribunal in OA No. 471/2000. In the present OA also, the circular dated 8.4.1991 has not been placed by the applicant although the said circular has been referred to justify his claim. Be that as it may, it filed another OA No. 147/2010 Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 8 OA NO.321 OF 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 1.4.2010, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to consider the his representation within 2 months. In compliance of the order of this Tribunal, the Respondents considered the representation of the applicant but the same was rejected vide order dated 14.09.2010. Thereafter, the applicant maintained silence and did not challenge the said order of rejection and allow the grass to grow under the feet for these years till filing the present OA in the year 2018.
7. By filing the present OA seeking direction to the Respondents to confer him temporary status and regularization without any specific prayer for his re- engagement. We have also gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umadevi (surpa). Since the applicant himself admitted that he was not in engagement and completed ten years as of the year 2006, the said judgment is found to be no help to his case. The delay of more than 8 years has not been explained. Further, the order dated 14.09.2010 passed by the respondents rejecting his case as per the order dated 1.4.2010 of the Tribunal has not been challenged by the applicant in this OA, obviously to overcome the point of limitation. Section 21 of the A.T. Act, 1985 is very clear to the above extent. Law on the subject of limitation is also no more res integra and suffice to place reliance on one such decision in the case of D.C.S. Negi -vs- UOI & Ors. [SLP (Civil) No. 7956/2011 CC No. 3709/2011). It is also profitable to place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 31.07.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 6268/2021 (UOI & Ors. Vs. Biswanath Kumar & Anr.) which according to us has fullest application to the case in hand. Relevant Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 9 OA NO.321 OF 2019 portion of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa is quoted herein below:
"24. A fine distinction is to be drawn in respect of 'acceptability' and 'unacceptability', as far as the condonation of delay is concerned. The reasons and its genuinity are important for condoning the delay. It became unnecessary that the Courts have to consider the precedents and condone the delay thereafter or reject the same. There are judgments for and against, but predominantly the facts, circumstances and the genunity of the reasons of each case plays a pivotal role in considering the relief of condonation of delay. It is, therefore, trite to say that Judgments dealing with the condonation of delay may not lay down any standard or objective test but is purely an individualistic test. The Court is required to examine while adjudicating the matter relating to condonation of delay on exercising judicial discretion on individual facts involved therein. There does not exist any exhaustive list constituting sufficient cause. The applicant/petitioner is required to establish that in spite of acting with due care and caution, the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control and was inevitable.
25. In the present context, it is the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra) is applicable, which relates to service matter, wherein the apex Court disapproved the entertainment of challenging the punishment order in a disciplinary proceeding after four years, as it suffers from delay and laches, by holding that the petitioner was careless to his duty and responsibilities and had been dismissed for unauthorized absence and, as such, delay in approaching Court in circumstances assumes more importance and without justification delay cannot Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 10 OA NO.321 OF 2019 be ignored. As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed for delay. The apex Court further held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ Court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. In paragraph-16 of the said judgment, the apex Court held as under:-
"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal lay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant - a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorizedly absent on the pretext of Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 11 OA NO.321 OF 2019 some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons- who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'. In our considered opinion, such dealy does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
26. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the apex Court, it is made clear that the delay, which was caused in approaching the writ Court, should not be lightly interfered with by condoning the same. Therefore, the ratio decided by the apex Court in the aforementioned judgment is fully applicable to the present case and without taking into consideration the ratio decided in the said case in proper perspective, the Tribunal has committed gross error apparent on the face of record by condoning the delay of four years for entertaining the Original Application on merits in the name of grant of substantial justice, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
27. In view of the aforesaid facts and law, as discussed above, the inevitable conclusion arrived at by this Court is that the Tribunal was not justified in condoning the delay of four years in preferring the Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack to consider the imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority, which was reduced by the appellate authority in appeal and confirmed by the Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30' 12 OA NO.321 OF 2019 revisional authority in revision. Thereby, the order so passed by the Tribunal on 18.01.2021 in M.A. No. 544 of 2020 (arising out of O.A. No. 289 of 2020) cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. As a consequence of non-entertainment of the application for condonation of delay, i.e., M.A. No.544 of 2020, the O.A. No. 289 of 2020 also cannot be entertained by the Tribunal.
28. In the result, therefore, the writ petition stands allowed. However, under the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs." 8. In view of the discussions made above, we find no justification to condone the delay. Hence MA No. 183/2018 is accordingly dismissed and as a consequence OA fails and is Also dismissed. No costs."
7. On examination facts of this case with the case noted above, we are convinced that the present case is one and the same to the case in O.A. No.294 of 2018. No such distinguished features has been brought to our notice to make a departure from the view already taken in the aforesaid O.A. Hence, going by the order of this Bench dated 05.01.2024 passed in O.A. No.294 of 2018, the instant O.A.is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. No costs.
(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.) K.B/PS Digitally signed by Kalpeswar Behera Kalpeswar DN: cn=Kalpeswar Behera, o=Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, ou=ALL, Behera [email protected] Date: 2025.08.08 11:31:42 +05'30'