Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Jayesh V Bhairavia, Judicial Member, Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, Judicial Member, Pramod Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Manoranjan Naik – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicants' engagement history and claims timeline (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties' contentions on regularization eligibility (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. division bench split and uma devi interpretation (Para 7) |
| 4. points of reference for full bench (Para 8) |
| 5. bsnl's responsibility for pre-2000 casual workers (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. rejection of delay, laches, and forum shopping pleas (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. post-uma devi precedents favoring long-service regularization (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 8. precedential value and in rem judgments override delay (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. affirmative answers to references favoring applicants (Para 27) |
| 10. direction for regularization within 90 days (Para 28 , 29) |
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
At the first blush, it is noteworthy that due to difference of opinions between two Members of the Division Bench, this matter has been placed before the Full Bench.
2. We feel it just and proper to refer to a few facts necessary for adjudication of the matter. According to the applicants-
(a) Between 1991 to 1997, all of them were engaged as casual labourers.
(b) On 29.09.2000, a circular was issued by the DoT to consider regularization o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
