Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4575

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sunil Thomas, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Uttam Thapa – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
Original Application No. 046/00083/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Niran Borah
For the Respondents: N. Baruah, BSNL counsel

Casual labourers continuously engaged for decades post-Uma Devi in perennial roles entitled to regularization despite scheme ineligibility; judgment curbs exploitation, not rights of long-serving irregular appointees in sanctioned posts. (28 words)

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Regularization of casual labourers - Casual labourers engaged during 1997-1999 for administrative exigencies, performing Group-D duties, continued in service even post Uma Devi judgment without regularization - 1989 Scheme not applicable due to cutoff dates, yet continuous long-term engagement post-judgment held not illegal but irregular - State instrumentalities cannot exploit workers by perpetual casual engagement or use judgment as shield against regularization where work perennial and posts sanctioned - Direction for regularization with consequential benefits upheld as one-time measure under para 53, distinguishing irregular from illegal appointments. (Paras 14-29)

(B) Uma Devi (3) & Ors. - Para 53 - Scope - Not bar to regularization of long-serving irregular appointees in sanctioned posts without court orders; subsequent rulings clarify judgment curbs exploitation, mandates schemes for perennial roles; continuous engagement post-judgment ripens claim, vacancies to be created rationally if needed. (Paras 17-27)

Facts of the case:
Casual labourers employed by public telecom corporation from 1997-1999 sought regularization after decades of continuous service performing regular duties amid staff shortages; prior representations and proceedings rejected citing scheme ineligibility and judgment restrictions; respondents defended on grounds of delayed claims, non-fulfilment of 10-year service as on judgment date, and no extant scheme.

Findings of Court:
Applicants entitled to regularization despite scheme ineligibility; continuous post-judgment engagement indicates perennial need against sanctioned posts; respondents directed to regularize services with all consequential benefits within three months.

Issues: Whether long-continuous casual engagement post-1989 Scheme and judgment entitles regularization absent scheme coverage; validity of distinguishing irregular appointments for one-time measure; employer obligation to cease exploitation via perpetual casual labour.

Ratio Decidendi: Continuous engagement of casual workers for decades in perennial roles, even post-judgment, constitutes irregular (not illegal) appointment against sanctioned posts; employer cannot deny regularization by citing judgment after exploiting labour; para 53 permits consideration on merits for 10+ years service without court cover, reinforced by later rulings against outsourcing/adhocism as proxy.

Result: Original Application allowed.

Table of Content
1. applicants are long-term casual bsnl laborers seeking regularization. (Para 1)
2. 1989 scheme for casual laborer temporary status and regularization. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. prior representations and tribunal orders rejected applicants' claims. (Para 5 , 6)
4. respondents deny eligibility citing uma devi and scheme cutoffs. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
5. undisputed long engagement despite lacking scheme eligibility. (Para 13 , 14)
6. uma devi permits regularization of irregular long-term engagements. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
7. post-uma devi rulings reject exploitation via prolonged casual employment. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
8. state cannot deny regularization for perennial work despite no vacancies. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
9. applicants entitled to regularization with consequential benefits. (Para 29)

O R D E R

Per: Justice Sunil Thomas, Judicial Member -

The applicants who are employed under the respondents as casual labourers seek regularization of their service.

2. The applicants were employed as casual labourers under the respondent BSNL authorities during the period 1997 to 1999. They were appointed for administrative exigencies due to acute shortage of working strength and pressure of ongoing developmental works in Secondary Switching Areas of North East-II circle of BSNL. The applicants were performing the duties and responsibilities of Group-D employees although their initial appointments were on casual basis. The services of the applicants were extended from time to time and are even now working under the BSNL North East Circle, Dimapur.

3. According to the applicants pursuant to the judicial decisions, the respondents framed a scheme on 7.11.1989 as “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1989” and was communicated to all the Heads of Department. Annexure A1 is the copy of the scheme. Since there was some confusion regarding the cutoff date, Annexure A2 order dated 1.9.1999 was issued stating that the scheme would be applicable to the casual labourers who were recruited up to 1.8.1998.

4. The system of regularization of casual employees were under the consideration of the authorities and vide Annexure A3 dated 29.9.2000 the decision of the Department to regularize all casual labourers working in the Department was issued. Competent authority by Annexure A4 dated 19.4.2001 requested to send the names of casual labourers who were left out for regularization after the names were called. According to the applicants they were also eligible for regularization. Hence, they represented before the authorities that their names were left out. Annexures A5 and A6 communications were sent in the meanwhile, regarding the persons who were so left out. It seems that there were series of communications as Annexures A7 to A11. Despite the above such communications, nothing was done and several other persons who were similarly situated were bestowed with the benefit under the scheme of 1989. However, it was not extended to the applicants.

5. Since they were not given the benefit, they approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 85 of 2013 claiming temporary status. By Annexure A12 order dated 28.11.2014 the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in consonance with the scheme. Ultimately, after long delay, by Annexure A13 order their claims were rejected. Though some of the applicants had moved by filing reference case No. 15 of 2019 before the Industrial-cum-Labour Court at Guwahati on a wrong advice, the case was later withdrawn. In the meanwhile, communications were being exchanged between officers at different levels regarding the regularization process as Annexures A14 to A16.

6. In the meanwhile, some of the applicants along with few other similarly situated persons approached the High Court by filing WP© No. 430 of 2011 praying for regularization of their services. It was disposed of directing the respondents that the case of the applicants may be co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4575

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALSunil Thomas, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)Uttam Thapa – AppellantVersusBharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – RespondentOriginal Application No. 046/00083/2025

Casual labourers continuously engaged for decades post-Uma Devi in perennial roles entitled to regularization despite scheme ineligibility; judgment curbs exploitation, not rights of long-serving irregular appointees in sanctioned posts. (28 words)

Cases Referred (5)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sunil Thomas, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Uttam Thapa – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited – Respondent
Original Application No. 046/00083/2025