Vacancy availability is critical for service regularization; claims must be timely and substantiated to avoid dismissal due to delay.

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member(A))

The applicants have filed these OAs under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following relief:

(i)To call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in “ connection with the letter No. BSNL/39-3/SR/2017 dated 24.07.2018 by AGM (SR) BSNL and set aside the decision conveyed under ltem 2 of the Minutes of 36th meeting of the National Council held on 12th June, 2018, rejecting the request of the applicants for extending the benefit of regularization of their casual service, granted in Annexure A7 order of the Ernakulam Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal;

ii) To declare that all the applicants are entitled for regularisation of their casual service till the date of their regular appointment with all service benefits as has been granted in Annexure A7 order followed by all consequential benefits.

(iii)to direct the respondents to regularise the service of all the Applicants for the periods shown against their names in Annexure A10 list.

iv) to grant such other further relief's as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Since the issue involved in all the OAs is similar which is founded on similar facts and circumstances and the relief prayed is same, these OAs are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, are as follows:

3.1 The Applicants were initially appointed as Short Duty Telegraphists, Telephone Operators and Telegraph Assistants and then Reserved Trained Pool Telegraphists, Telephone Operators and Telegraph Assistants (RTP- TLS, TOs and TAs in short) during the years 1980-1988 on various dates. While continuing as such, they were regularly appointed in the post of RTP TLS, TOs and TAs from later dates respectively. Some of the Telegraphist, Telephone Operators and Telegraph Assistant, who had been initially appointed from the Short Duty and then Reserved Trained Pool before being regularly appointed, approached the Hon'ble CAT Ernakulam Bench in OA No 133 of 2009 and they were granted the benefit of regularization of service as Short Duty and then RTP TO from the date of initial appointment by order of the Tribunal. The same benefits have been denied to the applicants who are similarly placed as the applicants in OA 133 of 2009 before the Ernakulam Judgment.

3.2 The applicants are aggrieved by the decision of second respondent not to extend the same benefit, as conveyed in the minutes of Item 2 of the 36th Meeting of the 143 National Council held on 12th June 2018 circulated vide the letter of the 2^nd Respondent dated 24.07.2018 . The respondents have relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and another Vs K.N. Sivadas and others (1997) 7 SCC 30. This contention already raised by the respondents before the Ernakulam Bench was resisted by the applicants as having no application in the case of the applicants in OA 133 of 2009. The order of the Tribunal in OA 133 of 2009 was challenged before the High Court of Kerala by filing O.P (CAT) of 2010 (S) and the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by an order dated 1.10.2010 dismissed the appeal. The SLP filed by the respondents was also dismissed as withdrawn by an order dated 23.8.2013 with liberty for the appellants therein, i.e., the respondent department to file a review petition before the High Court. The Hon'ble High Court came to pass a detailed order in the Review Petition No. 880/2013 dated 10.08.2017