SANKAR BASFORE vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED on 14 October 2026

ORDER

PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):- “8.1. Impugned letter dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure A1) be set aside and quashed.

8.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to confer temporary status to the applicant at least w.e.f. 01.09.1999 vis-a-vis similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi Rao and regularisation on 16.02.2004 as granted to similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi Rao and junior Sri Pritu Bhushan Roy, with all consequential benefits.

8.3. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”

2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially engaged in the respondents’ Department as a part-time casual worker on 01.07.1997. He worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months and w.e.f. 11.11.2003, he was converted to full time casual labour. The applicant is a left out casual labour for regularisation as mentioned in the letter dated 28.05.2011, which is on account of administrative lapse and error on the part of the respondents and for which the applicant cannot be made to suffer. This O.A. is made against the impugned letter dated 20.07.2023 (received on 26.07.2023), whereby the prayer of the applicant for grant of temporary status (TSM) and

SOURABH KUMAR

regularisation has been rejected, in spite of having worked long since 01.07.1997 as casual labour and full time w.e.f. 11.11.2003. This application is also made for a direction upon the respondents to confer temporary status on the applicant at least w.e.f. 01.09.1999 vis-a-vis similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi Rao and regularisation on 16.02.2004 as granted to similarly situated Ms. Laxmi Rao and junior, Sri Pritu Bhushan Roy in terms of DOT letter dated 29.09.2000, with all consequential benefits. Hence, this O.A.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the averments made in written statement and submitted that applicant has filed the instant OA seeking temporary status and regularization by citing policies of Department of Telecom, namely Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989 and letter dated 29.09.2000, which were enforced more than two decades ago. Therefore, his prayer is apparently hit by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is pertinent to mention that the applicant has not explained any satisfactory reasons for not approaching this Tribunal within the prescribed limitation period. In the absence of any cogent and satisfactory

SOURABH KUMAR

reasons for condonation of delay beyond three years from the date of cause of action, his prayer is liable to be dismissed at the threshold without entering into merits of the case. Counsel further states that applicant has been engaged as a part-time casual labour on 01.07.1997. He did not fulfil the conditions for becoming a TSM as per terms and conditions laid down in DoT’s TSM Scheme, 1989 circulated vide letter dated 07.11.1989, 17.12.1993 and letter dated 12.02.1999. Further, it was also stated that there should be no casual labourers left without temporary status after 01.08.1998(other than those indicated in serial no. 2 to 5 above). However, if there is still any casual labourers left due to any reason, that may be referred to Head Quarter separately. In this regard, it is to state that the present applicant was a part-time casual labour during erstwhile DoT regime i.e. upto 30.09.2000 and converted into a full time casual labourer as per approval conveyed by BSNL letter no. 269-13/99-STN/Pers IV/AS dated 24.09.2003. Further, with respect to similarly situated employee viz., Mrs. Laxmi Rao & others, it is to state that they were not eligible for TSM status as per TSM Policy, 1989 and as per the subsequent extension letter dated 12.02.1999. The

SOURABH KUMAR

said Scheme did not postulate for grant of temporary status to any casual worker, who was engaged subsequently as and when he completed prescribed continuity of services. The issue is no longer res-integra and has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in BSNL versus Sri Narayana Thimapра Madivel (Civil Appeal No. 6176/2008, Judgement dated 17.10.2008). Besides, it is quite a settled position of law that part-time casual workers working in erstwhile DTS/DTO were not covered by the Scheme of 1989 and not entitled for temporary status, for which reliance is placed upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ministry of Communications & Ors. – Vs- Sakkubai & Anr, (1997) 11 SCC 224 and Union of India versus Janakdhari Paswan (Civil Appeal No. 7495/1997 decided on 24.10.1997). Further, while passing the judgment and order in case of Union of India and anr. Vs Mohan Pal etc. on 29.04.2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that –– "However, we make it clear that the Scheme of 01.09.1993 is not an ongoing Scheme and the 'temporary' status can be conferred on the casual labourers under that scheme only on fulfilling the conditions incorporated in Clause 4 of the Scheme, namely they should have been casual labourers in employment as on the date of the commencement of the scheme and they

SOURABH KUMAR

should have rendered continuous service of at least one year, i.e. at least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of office shaving 5 days a week). We also make it clear that those who have already been given 'temporary' status on the assumption that it is an ongoing Scheme shall not be stripped of the 'temporary' status pursuant to our decision." In BSNL versus Sri Narayana ThimappaMadivel (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that one time nature of the scheme of DoPT would be squarely applicable in the case of Telecom Department and scheme of 1989 formulated by them with different cut-off date of commencement. Besides above, part- time casual workers working in erstwhile DTS/DTO were not covered by the Scheme of 1989 and not entitled for temporary status, for which reliance is placed upon judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ministry of Communications & Ors. Vs. Sakkubai & Anr, (1997) 11 SCC 224 and Union of India versus Janakdhari Paswan (Civil Appeal No. 7495/1997 decided on 24.10.1997]. Therefore, in the above-mentioned background, the precedents cited by the applicant to claim temporary status are not relevant as the features of the Scheme as well as afore- said binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were overlooked by the Ld. Tribunal/High Court. It is pertinent to

SOURABH KUMAR

mention that the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi(3) and Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1], has categorically held that keeping in view the constitutional scheme of equality, as contained in Articles 14 in and 16 of the Constitution of India, regularisation or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees in public employment dehors the constitutional scheme is impermissible in law. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant seeking regularization of his services on mere long continuity of services, is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant in the instant Original Application has challenged the letter dated 27.07.2003, whereby grant of Temporary Status (TSM) has been denied to the applicant. As such, there is no question of limitation here in filing this application as stated by the respondents. It is admitted by the respondents that the applicant was engaged as casual labour on 01.07.1999 and converted to full time on 11.11.2003 with continued service till date. As such, he is duly entitled for grant of TSM status and also regularization as granted to other similarly situated/junior employees in terms of the extant

SOURABH KUMAR

instructions of the Govt. of India. It is clearly evident from the letter dated 28.05.2011 that the applicant is a left out casual labour for regularization. As already stated above, similarly situated employees/juniors have already been granted temporary status and regularization and the applicant has been left out both for grant of TSM status and regularization due to administrative lapses, and error on the part of the respondents. It is stated that the applicant has been regularly carrying out his service and duties of regular nature since 01.07.1997 and he has no role in denial of TSM status and regularization to him, such lapses are solely attributable to the respondents. It is the settled position of law that the applicant cannot be made to suffer due to administrative lapses and error on the part of the administration. It is incumbent upon the respondents to rectify their lapses and error immediately by granting temporary status to the applicant at least w.e.f. 01.09.1999 and regularization at least from 16.02.2004. It is also not denied by the respondents that junior of the applicant, Sri Pritu Bhashan Roy, who was engaged on casual labour on 01.01.1998 has also been conferred TSM status on 13.03.2003 and regularization by letter dated 16.02.2004 and the applicant had been subjected to hostile discrimination against

SOURABH KUMAR

his junior amounting to violation of Article 14, l6 and 2l of the Constitution of India. The respondents in their WS, have stated that similarly situated employees namely, Mrs. Laxmi Rao, Junior- Sri Prithu Bhusan Roy, Prabir Kumar Bannerjee, Sambhu Chakaborty, Sibu Sankar Kundu, Rajen Rajkhow were granted TSM pursuant to the judgment of this Tribunal. It is categorically stated that this Tribunal, while passing the above mentioned judgments have already taken into consideration the judgment of Union of India vs. Mohan Pal and all other relevant judgments. It is highly arbitrary on the part of the respondents to deny the similar benefit to the present applicant as has been granted to other similarly situated employees. On the contrary, all the judgments referred to by the respondents in the written statement are not applicable in the present case of the applicant as the facts and circumstances of those cases are different. It is clearly evident from the letter dated 28.05.2011 that the applicant is a left out casual labour for regularization. As already stated above, similarly situated employees/juniors have already been granted temporary status and regularization and the applicant has been left out both for grant of TSM status and regularization for administrative lapses, and error on the part

SOURABH KUMAR

of the respondents. It is the settled position of law that the applicant cannot be made to suffer due to administrative lapses and error on the part of the administration. It is incumbent upon the part of the respondents to rectify their lapses and error immediately by granting temporary status to the applicant at least w.e.f. 01.09.1999 and regularization at least from 16.02.2004. Counsel also states that the classification of only part- time casual labours excluding the full time casual labourers for grant of temporary status and regularization is arbitrary and unreasonable and does not seek to serve any purpose; there is no intelligible differentia for such a classification and no nexus with any object or purpose sought to be achieved. It is an unreasonable classification of only part time casual labourers excluding the full time casual labours for grant of temporary status and regularization which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is not tenable in law.

5. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.

6. It is an admitted position that the applicant has been regularly carrying out his service and duties of regular nature

SOURABH KUMAR

since 01.07.1997. Even one Letter dated 28.05.2011 also speaks that the applicant is a left out casual labour for regularization. However, applicant’s contention is that similarly situated employees/juniors have already been granted temporary status and subsequent regularization. Vide letter dated 16.02.2004, along with the 61 TSM even 27 full time casual labourers have been regularized. It is also not denied by the respondents that junior of the applicant, Sri Pritu Bhashan Roy, who was engaged as casual labour on 01.01.1998 has also been conferred TSM status on 13.03.2003 and Regularization vide letter dated 16.02.2004.

7. Respondents have relied upon the judgment in Umadevi’s case, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that all appointments in Government have to be done as per the Constitutional norms and rules and bye-passing these norms by engaging causal or ad-hoc engagements is not permissible. The judgment also provides for one time measure for regularization of casual or ad-hoc or temporary employees subject to fulfilment of conditions as stipulated in the judgment. In the judgment in Umadevi case, it was held as under:–

SOURABH KUMAR

“43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law, has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee.........”

8. It is also significant to note that the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. Umadevi

(3) & Ors. is not applicable here in the present case of the applicant in view of the fact that it is the settled position of law as laid down by judgment dated 20.12.2024 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India, Civil Appeal no. 14831/2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 558012024) [2024 INSC 1034] that even contractual and casual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them otherwise it violates the principles of natural justice. Further, the case of the applicant is also buttressed by the Judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & anr. arising out of SLP(C)

SOURABH KUMAR

No. 5580/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “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.”

9. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that once similarly situated persons have been granted temporary status and regularization, we cannot take a different view while deciding the present case also. Accordingly, the instant OA is allowed with the following directions to the respondents:

(a) Impugned Letter dated 20.07.2023(Annexure-A/1) is set aside and quashed.

(b) To confer temporary status to the applicant w.e.f. 01.09.1999 vis-à-vis similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi Rao and regularisation w.e.f. 16.02.2004 as has been granted to similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi Rao and junior- Sri Pritu Bhushan Roy.

(c) Consequential benefits, if any, may also be granted to the applicant.

SOURABH KUMAR

(d) The above exercise is directed to be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

10. Pending M.A.(s), if any, stand disposed of. No costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/SK/

SOURABH KUMAR