The principle of laches and the availability of alternative remedy were central to the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for following reliefs:-

a. The respondents be directed to give effect to the order dated 03.02.1989 so far this petitioners are concerned and to extend all the Benefits of regularization at par with the same and similarly situated persons for which he is legally entitled to.

b. The respondents be directed to pay the petitioners regular salary and all service benefits inpersuance to the order of regularization dated 03.02.1989.

c. The respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioners and to extend all the service benefits for regularization to these petitioners without any further delay.

d. The respondents be directed to pay the arrears of salary for the period from 14.05.1986 to 10.03.2008 i.e. from the date of put off to the date of joining for which he was put off in connection with the criminal case but subsequently were acquitted from the Criminal charge.

e. The respondents be directed to treat the petitioners as regularized on and from 03.02.1989 i.e. the date when their juniors were regularized and give all consequential benefits thereon.

f. Any other relief or reliefs for which these petitioners are entitled to.

3. Ms. M.M.Pal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioners were posted as Conductors, a criminal case was lodged against them on 20.02.1986 under Sections 452, 448, 384, 506 and 511 I.P.C. for which both the petitioners were sent up for trial and they were put off from duty vide order dated 14.04.1986 issued by the Chairman- cum- Managing Director of the respondent-Board. Lastly vide judgment dated 27.05.1988 both the petitioners were acquitted.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that after their acquittal; both made representations in the year, 1988 and requested the authorities to allow them to join their duties. However, they were restrained from joining their duties in spite of the fact that a list of casual workers were prepared by the BSRTC and altogether 377 workers were considered for regularization in which the name of these petitioners were at serial no. 342 and 343.

5. Ms. Pal further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-4 and submits that after more than 25 years the joining of the petitioners has been accepted and they have been posted at Daltonganj Depot. In the said letter dated 10.03.2008 (Annexure-4) issued by the Headquarter, the joining of the petitioners were accepted on conditions:-

(a) In absence of regular conductor, on the basis of requirement, they will provide work and on that basis they will be paid wages.

(b) They will be paid wages in the previous rate and all the orders issued before the date of put off are deemed to be cancelled.

The petitioners thereafter performed their duties, however they were not regularized.

6. Ms. Pal concluded her argument and submits that even though the petitioners were appointed and were considered for regularization pursuant to Memo No. 299 dated 03.02.1989 and their names were at serial nos. 342 and 343, the respondents never took work from them and it is only on 10.03.2008 their joining were accepted. Though the petitioner represented several times, but their claim for back wages from the date of regularization i.e. 03.02.1989 till the date of joining i.e. 10.03.2008 were never paid to them

7. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 (BSRTC) submits that the issue of regularization has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court and referred to the judgment passed in C.W.J.C No. 12926 of 2009 and submits that the petitioner should have filed application before the Labour Commissioner as they were having an alternative remedy. Replying to this contention of learned counsel for BSRTC, Ms. Pal contended that this judgment cannot be applied with the case of the petitioner as this order has been passed in the case of a Union and not for any individual.

8. Ms. Shiva