Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2993
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Ojha, J, Pankaj Kumar, ACJ
Ram Swaroop – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 332/00133 of 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Dharmendra Awasthi
For the Respondents: Shri Rajendra Singh, Shri Pradeep Kumar
The court established that denying temporary status and regularization to a worker based on incorrect employment classification constitutes discrimination in violation of service equality principles.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Casual Labour - The applicant sought temporary status and regularization in service akin to similarly situated employees. The Tribunal recognized discrepancies in the treatment of the applicant as compared to a similarly situated employee, Chhotey Lal, and ruled that the rejection of the applicant's representation was based on incorrect assumptions of employment status. (Paras 8.1, 9.2)
(B) Discrimination - The court underscored that treating a casual worker differently from another who was under similar employment circumstances constituted unlawful discrimination, leading to entitlement for temporary status and regularization of the applicant's service. This disregard for principles exemplified in Uma Devi case presented grounds for regularizing the applicant's service based on longevity and parity. (Paras 6.1, 8.3)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was dismissed from service following a lengthy employment as a casual labour from 1979, only to find one similarly situated, Chhotey Lal, granted the benefits of regularization which the applicant was unjustly denied, prompting this application.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found merit in the grievance due to the incorrect rationale provided for denial of similar benefits and ordered that the applicant’s status be reconsidered for temporary status and regularization to occur post facto basis.
Issues: The primary issue addressed was whether the applicant’s service was unjustly rendered unequal to that of Chhotey Lal, thus entitling the applicant to similar treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that discrepancies in defining status between comparable employees of the same service unequivocally denote discrimination, failing the tested standards of equal treatment.
Result: Application allowed, order dated 29.01.2015 quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for seeking relief and establishing employment status. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. contending disparity in treatment for service regularization. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's scrutiny of employment records and procedural decisions. (Para 5) |
ORDER (ORAL)
Per Hon’ble Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative
In this case relating to casual labour, the applicant has sought following reliefs:
“(i) To quash the order no. Estt/M-15-4/Genl./01/Ch.1/5L dated 29.01.2015 by which the case of the applicant has been rejected by the Assistant General Manager (Administration) Telecom as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the application.
(ii) To direct the opposite parties to grant temporary status to the applicant and regularized his services as similarly situated person Sri Chotey Lal has been regularised and pay his pension and other benefits accordingly in accordance with law.
(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed.
(iv) To allow the cost of the petition.”
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the applicant was appointed as Extra Departmental Messenger (EDM, hereafter) in the Posts & Telecom Department on 24.08.1979. After the bifurcation of the Department, the Department of Telegraph Office (DTO, hereafter) was established and the applicant joined DTO on 15.06.1984. A notice dated 27.06.1987 for repatriation of EDMs was issued by Department of Telecommunications (DoT, hereafter) stating that as they were in a position to post regular staff, services of EDM staff will no longer be required and their absorption in Traffic Wing was not possible. The notice was challenged in OA No. 685 of 1987 and this Tribunal, vide judgment and order dated 16.08.1989, held that the applicants had the right to continue in DTO Kheri till a policy decision in similar matters was taken or till they could be absorbed in the Postal Branch, whichever was earlier. The applicant continued to work in DTO and with creation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL, hereafter) on 01.10.2000, the applicant continued to work in BSNL. The applicant approached this Tribunal again in OA No. 425 of 2002 for grant of temporary status as granted to one Chotey Lal which was disposed of on 03.12.2008 directing respondent no. 2 to consider the applicant’s case for grant of temporary status and for regularization. Respondent no. 2 rejected the applicant’s case for grant of temporary status as casual labour and regularization as regular mazdoor vide order dated 29.01.2015. In the meantime, the applicant retired from service on 28.02.2013. Aggrieved, the applicant has preferred this OA.
3. The applicant contends that on transfer to DTO, he was working as casual labour for 8 hours per day from 16.06.1984 to 31.07.1987 when the repatriation notice dated 27.06.1987 was served on him; he further contends that the respondents reduced his working hours to 5 thereafter to justify their stand in OA No. 685 of 1987 that the applicant was EDM whose working hours are 5 per day. He states that his working hours were increased to 8 per day vide order dated 05.05.2000. He further states that on merger of Engineering Wing with Telegraph Traffic Wing his post was transferred to SSA Sitapur vide order dated 15.11.1994. The applicant claims that one Chotey Lal was also appointed as EDM and transferred to Telegraph Department as reflected in Divisional Engineer (Admn) Lucknow letter dated 17.12.1996 and indicating that he was working for 5 hours per day and that his case could be taken up for regularization if his working hours are increased to 8 per day; Chotey Lal’s working hours were increased to 8 hours per day and he was given temporary status on 12.02.1999 and his service regularized vide order dated 01.10.2000. The applicant contends that his case is similar to Chotey Lal’s case and he cannot be discriminated against and deprived of benefit provided to similarly situated person; yet his case has been rejec
