Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Lakshmiamma vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 17 June, 2025
1 OA No.310/01525/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01525/2019
Dated this the 17th day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER(A)
R. Lakshmiamma (3099),
W/o Dakshinamurthy,
No.23, Ancheyar Nagar,
3rd Street, O.H. Road,
Royapuram, Chennai. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s R. Rajeshkumar
Vs.
1.The Chairman cum Managing Director,
BSNL Corporate Office,
Bharat Sanchar Bhavan,
Harish Chandra Mathur Lane,
Janpath, New Delhi.
2.The Chief General Manager,
BSNL, Chennai Telephones,
78, Purasaiwakkam High Road,
Chennai.
3.The Dy. General Manager(HR/A),
BSNL, Chennai Telephones,
No.89, Millers Road, Chennai. .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr. S. Udayakumar
2 OA No.310/01525/2019
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) The applicant seeks to set aside the impugned order, dated 30.09.2019 passed by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to regularize her as regular Mazdoor from the date on which she was appointed and service benefits. She also prays for a direction to the respondents to take into account the service rendered by the applicant as Casual Labourers for pensionary purpose and to pass such other orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:
The applicant was appointed as a Part-time Casual Labourer in the respondents organization on 09.05.1985 and granted Temporary Status as Mazdoor on 20.09.1999. Similarly placed Temporary Status Mazdoors were regularized by an order, dated 04.12.2004, but the applicant was not regularized. The grievance of the applicant is that having worked for the respondents organization for more than 32 years, she has not been regularized as per the Temporary Status Regularization Scheme. She had been representing for regularization from time to time but the same was not considered. She filed OA No.321 of 2017 for a direction to the respondents to regularize her as Regular Mazdoor from the date on which she was appointed as Temporary Status Mazdoor with all consequential 3 OA No.310/01525/2019 benefits. The said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal by an order, dated 27.03.2019 to pass a speaking order on her representation, taking into account the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a similar case. Pursuant to the direction, the impugned order came to be passed rejecting her request to regularize her as Regular Mazdoor from the date she was appointed as Temporary Status Mazdoor. Aggrieved, the present OA has been filed.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant had served over 14 years as a Casual Labourer and more than 17 continuous years as a Temporary Status Mazdoor, totaling over 33 years of service. He challenged the respondents' claim that her initial appointment as a Part- time Casual Labourer was illegal, stating that having availed her services for such a long duration, the respondents cannot now assert such a position, which is inherently unjust. He further contended that the respondents only questioned the conferment of Temporary Status after the applicant filed OA No. 321 of 2017, and are now estopped from reversing their position after 20 years. The applicant, he argued, had a legitimate expectation of regularization. Additionally, he emphasized that the applicant was granted Temporary Status prior to the formation of BSNL, and therefore, BSNL cannot review or overturn the decision taken by the 4 OA No.310/01525/2019 Department of Telecommunications (DOT). Accordingly, he prayed for the relief sought in the OA.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant is not similarly placed to the applicant in the OA No.895 of 2015, as contended by her. For distinguishing the case of the applicant from that of the applicant in the OA 895 of 2015, he referred to the speaking order passed by the respondents, Department of Posts, pursuant to the direction given by the Tribunal. For proper understanding, relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
"It is seen from the order of Hon'bl CAT Madras in OA No.895/2015 filed by Smt. K. Hemavathy Vs.Dept ofPosts that the applicant therein has entered the department in the year 1984 and had worked continuously ever since. Temporary status was conferred wef 01.01.2001. It was the grievance of the applicant that she had rendered about 14 years of service as temporary status casual labourer (TSCL) after which she was discharged from the service on attaining 60 years of age. In that case as seen from the reply filed by Dept of Posts, in compliance with directions of Hon'ble Apex Court a scheme was drawn up by the Department for the conferment of Temporary Status to Casual Labourers by an order dated 12.04.1991. Subsequently, Postal Directorate vide order dated 16.09.1992 issued certain direction and based on that the competent authority of the divisions by letter dated 28.12.1999 directed to examine whether part time casual labourers could be made full time by readjustment and combination of duties. Accordingly, the competent authority passed orders for all the part time casual 5 OA No.310/01525/2019 labourers working for less than 8 hrs a day to be treated as full time casual labourers from 01.01.2000. Those who fulfilled this condition were also conferred with temporary status w.e.f. 01.01.2001. The applicant therein was granted TS w.e.f 01.01.2001. Thereafter the applicant's turn for regularization had not arrived within the permissible quota for TSCL and hence could not be regularized before the date of superannuation. It was observed by Hon'ble CAT Madras in Para 12 that "admittedly the applicant was covered by 1991 scheme for conferment of temporary status. No explanation is seen offered in the reply of the respondents as to the delay in taking up the case of the applicant and similarly placed casual labourers from 12.04.1991 to 28.12.1999 when the competent authority directed the division/unit to examine whether such persons could be made full time readjustment and combination of duties. Clearly, the applicant could not be held responsible for the delay. It would be reasonably presumed that had the respondents timely action under 1991 scheme in the aforesaid manner, the applicant would have been granted Temporary Status even before 01.01.2001."
Learned counsel by referring to the above order highlighted that the applicant therein though eligible to grant Temporary Status under the 1991 scheme, was only granted the status belatedly in 2011 despite earlier instructions from 1992. As her regularization had not occurred within the allowed quota for TSCL, she remained in that status until retirement at the age of 60 years.
6 OA No.310/01525/2019
5. He also noted that the Department of Posts had different provisions for regularization. Under its scheme (issued on 12.04.1991 and clarified on 30.11.1992), casual workers with temporary status were treated on par with Temporary Group D employees after three years of service, entitling them to benefits like pension and terminal dues unlike the DOT's TSM scheme (notified on 07.11.1989), which does not offer such benefits. As such, the present applicant's case differs due to the mistaken grant of TSM status.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Smt. Lakshmiamma was erroneously granted TSM status effective from 20.09.1999, despite being a part-time casual labourer, a category explicitly excluded from the TSM scheme. Consequently, she was not entitled to the benefits of the TSM scheme or regularization. As per the DOT's guidelines dated 16.09.1999 and 25.08.2000, part-time casual labourers could only be converted to full-time casual labourers and were ineligible for TSM status. Therefore, her case is factually distinct from that of Smt. Hemavathy of the Department of Posts (applicant in OA 835 of 2015).
7. Further, it is his case that the OA liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:
7 OA No.310/01525/2019
The applicant joined the organization as a part-time worker in 1985 and filed the present OA seeking regularization only after an inordinate delay of 32 years. Even after being granted Temporary Status Mazdoor (TSM) status in 1999, the applicant waited an additional 18 years before approaching the Tribunal, which demonstrates clear laches. It has also been found that the conferment of TSM status was contrary to the rules, and the applicant was not engaged against any sanctioned posts.
Furthermore, she retired in April 2017, making the relief sought redundant.
The applicant's claim that similarly placed casual labourers have been regularized lacks credibility, as no specific names were provided. If such claims were genuine, the applicant ought to have represented her case or approached the Tribunal earlier, comparing herself specifically with others. Importantly, the regularization of casual labourers in similar circumstances has been held illegal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (2006) and reaffirmed in Teja Singh vs. BSNL (2009). The 1989 scheme for temporary status and regularization is no longer legally valid in light of the Uma Devi judgment and is not an ongoing scheme. Moreover, the applicant seeks regularization from a date (20.09.1999) when BSNL did not exist and telecom services were under the Department of Telecommunications, yet the OA fails to include necessary parties, rendering it liable for dismissal on this ground as well.8 OA No.310/01525/2019
Lastly, while earlier claiming parity with the applicant in OA 895 of 2015, she has not contested the dissimilarities pointed out by the respondents in their speaking order.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. We have also given our careful consideration to the case laws referred to by the respective parties.
9. In the present case, the applicant was appointed as a Part-Time Casual Labourer in the respondent organization on 09.05.1985 and was granted Temporary Status Mazdoor w.e.f. 20.09.1999. The applicant was continuously engaged by the respondents and permitted to work until his superannuation, having rendered more than 33 years of service. Given the applicant's long and uninterrupted service, he is entitled not only to regularization but also to all consequential benefits available to employees who retire upon superannuation.
10. A similar matter, though involving less favorable facts, was considered by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 209/2020, vide order dated 29.03.2023. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The present applicant's case is on stronger footing than the applicant in O.A. No. 209/2020.
9 OA No.310/01525/2019
11. Furthermore, the issue of regularization of employees with Temporary Status has been conclusively settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar & Others v. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. ______ of 2024 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 22241-42 of 2016), vide judgment dated 30.01.2024. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted below:
6. The application of the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) by the High Court does not fit squarely with the facts at hand, given the specific circumstances under which the appellants were employed and have continued their service. The reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued over a considerable period through continuous service. Their promotion was based on a specific notification for vacancies and a subsequent circular, followed by a selection process involving written tests and interviews, which distinguishes their case from the appointments through back door entry as discussed in the case of Uma Devi
7. The judgement in the case Uma Devi (supra) also distinguished between "irregular" and "illegal"
appointments underscoring the importance of 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 10 OA No.310/01525/2019 [(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 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.
11 OA No.310/01525/2019
9. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be considered for regularization in their respective posts. The respondents are directed to complete the process of regularization within 3 months from the date of service of this judgment.'
12. It is worth to mention here that similar issue was once again considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs Union of India & Others in Civil Appeal No.______ of 2024, arising out of SLP (C ) No.5580 of 2024, order dated 20.12.2024, which also reconfirmed the judgment of Vinod Kumar & Others Vs Union of India, cited supra and the relevant portion of the judgement is extracted below:
"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 long-term 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 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.12 OA No.310/01525/2019
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.
26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective 13 OA No.310/01525/2019 application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.
27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is imperative for government departments to lead by example in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.
28. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are set aside and the original application is allowed"
13. In the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra, we are of the opinion that the action of respondents in not considering the claim of the applicant for regularization and granting the benefits for which the applicant is eligible and entitled to is bad in law. In the circumstance, the impugned order dated 30.09.2019 does not stand in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly quashed and set aside. Consequently, the respondents are directed to regularize the applicant as regular Mazdoor from the date of appointment as Temporary 14 OA No.310/01525/2019 Status Mazdoor and grant all consequential service benefits including Pension and Gratuity etc., within 3 months form the date of receipt of copy of the said order.
14. With the above direction, the OA is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
(SANGAM NARAIN SRIVASTAVA) (M. SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
17 . 06.2025
mas