Pet it ioners v. Bachan Das Anot her

Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocat e, for t he pet it ioner. Mr. Tej Singh Bisht , Advocat e, for t he r espondent no. 1. J U D G M E N T H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J. ( Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) Since in t hese t wo writ pet it ions, pet it ioners have challenged t he sam e j udgm ent dat ed 17.6.2015, rendered by Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal, Allahabad, Circuit Bench at Nainit al in OA No. 1452 of 2010, t hese are being heard and decided by t his com m on j udgm ent . However, for brevit y, fact s of Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) No. 364 of 2015 alone are being considered and discussed here. 1

2. By t he im pugned j udgm ent , com pet ent aut horit y was direct ed t o reconsider t he case of Bachan Das ( respondent no. 1 herein) regularizat ion, keeping in view t hat he has worked wit h Bharat Sanchar Nigam Lt d. ( BSNL) for m ore t han 10 years, in t he light of relevant rules and regulat ions. The said j udgm ent of Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal has been challenged by t he em ployee as well as t he em ployer. Writ Pet it ion ( S/ B) 364 of 2015 is filed by t he em ployer.

3. Mr. Suhaas Rat na Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for t he pet it ioners, vehem ent ly argued t hat case of respondent no. 1 does not com e wit hin t he schem e form ulat ed by BSNL for regularizat ion of casual labourers, t herefore t he direct ion issued by t he learned Tribunal is unsust ainable. He furt her subm it s t hat j udgm ent rendered by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of St at e of Karnat aka & Ot hers v. Um a Devi & Ot hers, AI R 2006 SC 1806, is not at t ract ed t o t he fact s of t he present case and learned Tribunal was not j ust ified in referring t o t he said j udgm ent .

4. Per cont ra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 subm it s t hat respondent no. 1 was engaged as casual labourer, alt hough he was having driving license also, in t he year 1992 and he served cont inuously as such t ill 2010 and during t he said period, he on several occasions was also asked t o drive t he lorry of BSNL. He furt her subm it s t hat t here were t hree ot her sim ilarly sit uat ed em ployees who were engaged as casual labourer and t hey were also assigned driving dut ies from t im e t o t im e and all such em ployees were regularized against Group ‘D’ post 2 under t he schem e form ulat ed in t he year 1989 and respondent no. 1 alone was denied benefit of regularizat ion. Learned Counsel for t he respondent no. 1 has drawn our at t ent ion t o t he schem e regularizat ion of casual labourers.

5. Learned Tribunal considered discussed all relevant aspect s and direct ed t he com pet ent aut horit y t o reconsider t he claim of respondent no. 1 for regularizat ion. Learned Tribunal furt her held t hat t he case of respondent no. 1 is covered by regularizat ion schem e.

6. We do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal. Aft er serving for m ore t han 18 long years as casual labourer, respondent no. 1 has earned right t o be considered regularizat ion and m ore so, when sim ilarly sit uat ed em ployees were considered and regularized. I n circum st ances, denial regularizat ion t o respondent no. 1 was not j ust ified. Learned Tribunal has sim ply direct ed t he com pet ent aut horit y t o exam ine t he claim of respondent no. 1 as per t he applicable rules and regulat ions. We concur wit h t he view t aken by t he learned Tribunal.

7. Thus t here is no scope for int erference. Bot h t he writ pet it ions are disposed of by direct ing t he com pet ent aut horit y t o exam ine t he claim of respondent no. 1 for regularizat ion as per t he schem e of regularizat ion, applicable in respect of Group ‘D’ em ployees in BSNL. 3

8. This Court hopes and expect s t his t hat exercise shall be com plet ed and necessary orders shall be passed wit hin eight weeks t he dat e of product ion of cert ified copy of t his order before t he com pet ent aut horit y. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 1 2 .8 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d4 62503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA5 8C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 4