MANGILAL DILA vs BSNL on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

The applicant, stating to be aged about 58 years, at the time of filing this OA, i.e. on 30.12.2022 and, by now, must have been aged about 62 years, has sought direction to regularize him retrospectively from the date of his casual engagement by quashing the order dated 05.10.2012 rejecting such prayer by the respondents INTER ALIA stating that the applicant was engaged as Casual/daily rated Mazdoor on 30.03.1985 and, after rendering 457 days of duties, he was retrenched on 27.05.1986 along with others. He approached before the court of law for his regularization. In the year 2003, the department invited Bio-data along with the medical report for consideration of regularization of retrenched casual labourers and, accordingly, prepared a panel of eligible casual labourers for regularization and issued letter dated 03.10.2003 in which the CGM, Orissa Telecom Circle was authorized to create upto 455 numbers of posts of RM to regularize the eligible CLs, if required after adjusting all the vacant posts of RM in the Circle by giving age relaxation, as per RAVI KUMAR

rules. The circle's ceiling 'limit will stand enhanced to that extent. It was also instructed that the ban placed on engagement of CLs and related regulatory instructions in this respect shall continue. The ban on outside recruitment against Gr.'D' posts shall also continue. Since, no action was taken, he, along with others, approached this Bench in O.A. No. 195/2011, which was disposed of on 29.6.2012 with direction to consider their cases for regularization in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnatak -vrs- Uma Devi & Others, AIR-2006 SC 1806. The said order of this Bench was challenged by the department before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 21824/2012. During pendency of the Writ Petition, the respondents considered and rejected his prayer for regularization vide order dated 05.10.2012. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa on 14.09.2022 granting liberty to the applicant to assail the order dated 05.10.2012 in accordance with law, if so advised. Hence, on the strength of the liberty granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, the applicant has filed this OA with the prayer RAVI KUMAR

mentioned above. According to the applicant/Ld Counsel for the applicant, taking into consideration the 457 days of causal service rendered by the applicant between 30.03.1985 to 27.05.1986 as per the instruction dated 03.10.2003, the applicant is entitled to the regularization with effect from his date of engagement.

2. Respondents filed counter contesting/objecting the very sustainability and maintainability of this OA both on the point of law of limitation so also on merit. In support of the stand that this OA is hit by the law of limitation, they have placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Jacob C Vs Director of Geology and Mining and Anr., (2008) 10 SCC 115, D.C.S.Negi Vs UOI & Ors, SLP(C) No. 7956/2011 CC No. 3709/2011 dated 11.03.2011, State of Tripura & Ors Vs Arabinda Chyakraborty & Ors, 2014 SCC (L&S) 2, State of Jammu and Kashiir Vs R.K.Zalpuru & Ors dated 08.10.2015 in Civil Appeal No. 8390-8391 of 2015, S.S.Balu & Anr. Vs State of Kerala & Ors, (2009) 2 SCC 479, State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors, 2014(2) SLR 688, UOI & RAVI KUMAR

Ors Vs N.K.Sarkar, 2010 2 SCC 59, BSNL Vs Ghanshyam Das and Ors, (2011) 4 SCC 374, and State of T.N. Vs Seshachalam, (2007) 10 SCC 137, and the order of this Bench dated 12.02.2020 in MA No. 190/2018 arising out of OA No. 321/2018 dismissing the matter filed by similarly placed applicant, namely Sri Dhableswar Naik.

3. Insofar as merit of the matter is concerned, it is stated that the applicant was never appointed by the competent authority against any vacant post through any recruitment process under any recruitment rule. He was never issued any appointment letter and, that, the applicant has not produced any piece of documentary evidence in this regard. Rather, he was engaged as daily rated casual worker by the field staff after 30.03.1985 for a very brief period that too on as and when required basis violating the ban order of the Department of Telecommunication vide letter No. Letter No. 270/6/84-STN dated 30.03.1985, without approval of the competent authority and not against any sanctioned post.

4. The Union of casual labourers approached before the RAVI KUMAR

Labour Court, Bhubaneswar in ID Case No. 24/2000, which ended on 07.12.2012 against the Union. The said award attained its finality without being challenged before any higher forum. The applicant, along with others, also approached the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa seeking regularization and the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 27.11.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 17474/2009, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi & Ors. (supra) held that no direction to the management to regularize the workmen can be issued and it is left open to the management/BSNL to consider the case of the applicants therein for regularization taking into consideration their long stretch of service. It is stated that the management considered the case but did not find feasible to regularize them. According to Ld. Counsel for the respondents, since the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa taking into consideration the instruction dated 03.10.2003 did not incline to issue direction for regularization, the applicant is estopped under law to pray for regularization based on the instruction dated 03.10.2003 and, in such an event, granting the relief to the RAVI KUMAR

applicant would tantamount to sitting over the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa/reversing the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, which is impermissible in law. Accordingly, respondents prayed that the OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

5. Ld. Counsel for the parties highlighted the above position in course of hearing and having heard them at length perused the records.

6. We have specifically examined the fact of this matter with reference to the case of Sri Dhabaleswar Naik in OA No. 321/2018 and we find that the said case was exactly same and similar to the present case. This Bench vide order dated 12.02.2020 dismissed the MA No. 190/2018 filed by the applicant seeking condonation of delay as also the OA. Therefore, we find no such distinguishable feature to take a contrary view than the view already taken by this Bench in order dated 12.02.2020. This apart, we find sufficient substance on the stand taken by the respondents’ counsel insofar as the merit of the matter is concerned that since the ID case filed seeking RAVI KUMAR

regularization have been lost by the Union, which order attained its finality and the claim of regularization even on the face of the instruction dated 03.10.2003 having been rejected by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa vide order dated 27.11.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 17474/2009, allowing the present relief to the applicant when admittedly, he is not in engagement even on casual or daily wage basis since 27.05.1986, only after putting 457 days of engagement, would tantamount to making injury to the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, which is impermissible in law. The applicant’s unjustified attempt to revive a long-dormant claim after an inordinate delay is akin to placing the proverbial straw on the camel's back, constituting an impermissible abuse of the judicial process.

7. In the said circumstances, this OA stands dismissed both on merit as well as on delay. Pending, MA, if any, also stands disposed of. Costs made easy.

(Pramod Kumar Das)

(Sudhi Ranjan Mishra) Member (Admn.)

Member (Judl.)

RK/PS RAVI KUMAR