$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 01.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 01.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 16123/2023 DHARAM VEER .....Petitioner Through: Ishita Kadiyan, Advocate.

versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ram Krishan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. The Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the correctness of the order dated 05.09.2022 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟] in O.A. No. 1837/2015, whereby the said Original Application filed by the Petitioner, seeking directions to the Respondents to regularize his services at par with Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi, came to be dismissed.

2. The primary issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his services at par with similarly situated employees, in terms of the judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed by this Court.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

4. The Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent No.1/BSNL as a casual labourer in the office of Delhi Telegraph Office („DTO‟), Paharganj, New Delhi, with effect from October, 1995. He continued to discharge his duties without any break till October, 2001, when the DTO, Paharganj, was closed.

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Telegraph Unit (Central Sub-Divisional Engineer, Central Telegraph Office) maintained a common seniority list of part-time casual labourers working across various DTO offices. In the said seniority list, the Petitioner was placed between Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi. While Sh. Naresh Kumar, who was junior to the Petitioner, was placed at Serial No. 12, the Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 13, and Smt. Guddi at Serial No. 14.

6. In the year 2001, upon closure of the DTO at Paharganj, the Petitioner was declared surplus. It is further the case of the Petitioner that similarly situated casual labourers, including Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi, were re-engaged in other offices. Sh. Naresh Kumar, who was junior to the Petitioner, having been initially engaged on 10.05.1996, was re-engaged on 22.02.2001. It is further stated that his services had earlier been dispensed with on 10.09.1998 on account of alleged misconduct. Smt. Guddi was also re-engaged. However, the Petitioner was not re-engaged at that stage.

7. Subsequently, the services of Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi were regularised, whereas no such benefit was extended to the Petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner, after making representations, filed W.P.(C) No. 11774/2004 seeking re-engagement and consequential benefits, including treatment at par with the aforesaid employees. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 26.10.2005. The relevant observations are reproduced as under:

“9. The petitioner admittedly had worked uninterruptedly for six years. The Unit where he was working was shut down like in the case of the other employees particularly Smt. Guddi. The policy of BSNL dated 10.10.2003 clearly indicates that those who had worked on part-time basis could be treated as full time casual labourers if they had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months prior to the date of issuance of the letter. The petitioner had been by then terminated from the services. Nevertheless, the stand of BSNL that he could not avail the benefit of the circular since the unit had been closed, is not reasonable. This is because in the case of Naresh Kumar, who was admittedly initially engaged for only two years but terminated on account of lack of devotion to dut