SUSANTA KUMAR PATEL vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 6 November 2026

O R D E R

Mr.SudhiRanjan Mishra, Member, J.M.

The applicant seeking for direction to the respondents for conferment of temporary status and taking into consideration of conferment of such Temporary Mazdoor Status to regularize the services of the applicant with consequential serve benefits accepting the service under the Department of Telecommunicationhas filed this OA praying for following reliefs: a) To direct the respondents to extend temporary status (TSM) against the applicant prior to w.e.f. the regaulrization of the services of the applicant in order to be eligible to come under the fold of GPF Scheme and under CCS Pension Rule, as indicated in Annexure 14 and 15.

Kalpeswar Behera

2. The fact of the case as inter alia averred stated by the applicant in the OA is as follows:

2.1. The applicant was engaged/appointed as a Casual Labourer under the Director of Telecom Project, Sambalpur on 1.8.1992. The services of the applicant is under Chief General Manager, Telecom Project, Eastern Zone, Calcutta under whom the Director of Telecom Project, Sambalpur is managing the Office and regulating the services of the casual employees. As per his instruction, the Director, Telecom Project engaged the applicant in different fields and the field work having been operated by him. After creation of Bharat Sarichar Nigam Limited (for short "BSNL") on 1.10.2000, the Department of Telecommunication of India instructed the Department to act upon under the guideline and regulate the services of the employees as per the guideline and instruction. With effect from the declaration of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited till now, the applicant's services have been regulated by the Department of Telecommunication and his services has been regularized on 14.2.2001 with effect from 1.10.2000. While the applicant has been regularized, the Department without conferring temporary status, regularized the services of the applicant for which the applicant deprived and

Kalpeswar Behera discriminated by getting the benefit of service conferment of Temporary Status Mazdoor (for short TSM) having been placed under the Department of Telecommunication (for short "DOT"). The vital matrix of the applications as related that the services of the applicant without conferring temporary status has been regularized for which the applicant is deprived to get the benefit of G.P.F. facility in near future as his services will be placed under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. If the services of the casual labourers like the applicant will be regularized without conferment of temporary status, then their services will be placed under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and they are only eligible under the E.P.F. facility only. For the aforesaid two comparative statements, in first aspect, the applicants services at present is under the guideline of Department of Telecommunication and his G.P.F. contribution is continuing due to the terms of the Department of Telecommunication employee but his services has been placed at present without temporary status before the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited for which the applicant is apprehending to debar from G.P.F. facility and he will not be entitled any service benefits thereon if his services will be placed under the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. Even though

Kalpeswar Behera the services of the applicant is continuing after 30.3.1985, the eligibility for Temporary Status Mazdoor may not be applicable to him by virtue of the order of the Corporate Office, if the applicant opt to come under the purview of temporary status, his cases should be placed before the Department of Telecommunication, New Delhi vide Office Letter No.269-10-89-STN-II dated 14.8.1998 addressing to all Head of the Circles including the Chief General Manager, Eastern Zone Telecom Project, Calcutta calling for requiring information through the respective employer i.e. the Directors for which the Director of Telecom Project, Sambalpur after receipt of such letter dated 14.8.1998 submitted the required information of the Casual Mazdoors i.e. 36 in numbers in his circle i.e. under the Director of Telecom Project, Sambalpur Circle to the Chief General Manager, Eastern Zone, Telecommunication, Calcutta on 19.8.1998 showing the continuance of casual labourers as on 1.8.1998. The Director of Telecom Project, Sambalpur pursuant to letter dated 19.5.1999 submitted the information with regard to continuance of casual labourers who are deserved to get the grant of Temporary Status as they are continuing as on 1.8.1998 and at present those who are continuing are entitled the conferment of temporary status

Kalpeswar Behera for which on 19.5.1999 such letter enclosing the serial of casual labourers have been transmitted to the Chief General Manager, Telecom Project, Eastern Zone-10, Raja Subodha Mallick Square, Calcutta-13. Though such letter has been issued enclosing the serial of of the casual labourers, the Department Telecommunication again vide its letter dated 30.6.2000 required the authenticate certificate with regard to the casual labourers those who are eligible to grant temporary status as on 1.8.1998. Again such authenticate certificates were also submitted on 21.7.2000. After submission of such authenticate certificate, the applicant waited with utmost patience to get the order of temporary status but nothing has been communicated to him. But it is utter surprise that other persons those who have later on submitted their authenticate certificates have conferred the temporary status. It is gross discrimination in part of the authority even though their temporary status benefits have been revised again on 27.8.2003. The General Manager, Telecom Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited i.e. G.M.T.D., Rourkela again on the basis of the representation forwarded the grievance of the applicant to General Manager, Telecom District, Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar by disclosing the facts with regard to non-

Kalpeswar Behera conferment of temporary status on the reason as to why it has not been granted. Thereafter the C.G.M.T., Odisha Circle, Respondent no.-4 sent to the Chief General Manager, Telecom Project, Eastern Zone, Calcutta for consideration but it was put under cold storage for which the application was given under Right To Information Act, 2005 to get the information as to why such temporary status order has not been given till now. While the office has not supplied the information vide its letter dated 3.7.2014 only communicated that it is not within the purview of the Right to Information Act then the applicant also approached to the Appellate Authority against such refusal to supply the required information. It is worthwhile to mention here that the Department of Telecommunication vide its letter dated 29.1.2002 passed the order with regard to the permanent absorption which will give effect from 1.10.2000 for the casual extending the benefit of pensionary gratuity labourers, those who are continuing where the applicant is coming under the said benefit and order has been passed in his favour that he is eligible under the pensionary benefits scheme and under the provision of Rule 37 of the C.C.A Pension Rule. As the applicant time to time approaching to the authority to give the details about his

Kalpeswar Behera

conferment of Temporary Status Mazdoor and treat the regularization after its conferment, that has not been considered till now for which the applicant is constrained to file the present Original Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to extend the Temporary Status Mazdoor and then consider the regularization by treating his services under the Department of Telecommunication (DOT) to be eligible to avail the G.P.F. benefit under the CCA Pension Rule. Without getting any response from the side of the respondents with regard to conferment of temporary status which relates to regularization, the applicant preferred this original application

3. The respondents have filed their counterinter alia averring that OA needs to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches only since the applicant slept over his grievance for an unreasonable long period. It is submitted that it is well settled decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court that stale claims are liable to be rejected and even repeated representations cannot make a stale claim live for adjudication.

4. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken in the OA and inter alia averring that after creation of BSNL on

Kalpeswar Behera

01.10.2000 the respondents remained blissfully silent without implementing it in letter and spirit to all the casual labourers by confirming them in temporary status and due to their negligent attitude, the applicant should not suffer.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. The applicant has filed MA No. 110/2020 for condonation of delay inter alia averring that it is a continuous cause of action as the department is requiring information from the applicant through other department and cause of action arose every month. It is submitted that applicant was field staff and he was not aware about the rule and guidelines of the department dated 01.10.2000. It is submitted that the relief claimed by the applicant is to extend temporary status prior to regularization of services in order to enable him to come under CCS (Pension) Rules therefore it is a continuous cause of action and the delay be condoned.

7. The respondents in their objection has raised objection on the point of delay stating therein that the applicant has filed this OA aggrieved by non consideration of his case for TSM (Temporary Status Mazdoor) when other cases were being

Kalpeswar Behera considered during the year 1999 under the Scheme of 1989 and could have approached the Court/Tribunal. It is submitted that filing of representations does not cure delay and laches. It is submitted that applicant filed representation in the year 2011 and then filed this OA in 2019,therefore the OA should be dismissed on the ground of limitation only.

8. Admittedly the applicant was engaged as casual labourer under the Director of Telecom Project in the year 1992 and then he was permanently absorbed as temporary employee of Department of Telecom in BSNL w.ef. 01.10.2000. Thereafter vide letter dated 23.03.2007, the respondents decided that casual labourers who were not having TSM status as on 30.09.2000 and who have been regualrized in BSNL after 01.10.2000 their status will be of a BSNL (PSU) appointee and will be covered under EPF scheme only. The cause of action for the applicant arose in the year 01.10.2000 and 23.03.2007. The applicant remained silent or filed representations but did not approached the competent court of law.

9. It is a well settled principle that delay defeats equity. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC479 in the following terms:

Kalpeswar Behera

"17. It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage."

10. The Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137 observed that it is now well settled that filing of series of representations cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on the part of the petitioner and Delay or Laches are a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration as law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.

11. The Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322 held that series of representation cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on the part of the petitioner. The Apex Court, at Paragraph 6, held as follows:

6. Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another (2008)10 SCC 115 the Apex Court

Kalpeswar Behera held that Reply to the representation relating to matter which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. The replies to such representations cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.

12. The Apex Court had occasion to examine such a situation in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkarb (2010) 2 SCC 59 wherein the Court held as follows: "The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead’ issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches."

13. It is relevant to refer to a Seven Judge Bench judgment in the case of S.S. Rathore vs State of Madhya Pradesh 1989 SCC

(4) 582 while dealing with the cause of action in a case of service dispute in view of the special limitation prescribed under Section 21(1)(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, inter alia, held that the repeated representation would not give rise to cause of action nor would condone the delay.

Kalpeswar Behera

14. In view of the above discussions and settled position of law, we find that the OA is barred by limitations. Accordingly the MA No. 112/2020 filed for condonation of delay is dismissed. Resultantly the OA stands dismissed. Pending MAs stand disposed of. No costs.

(PRAMOD KUMAR DAS) (SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)

Kalpeswar Behera