SANKAR BASFORE vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
GUWAHATI BENCH
[Reserved]

Original Application No. 40/219/2024


Reserved on: 09.09.2026


Pronounced on: 14.10.2026

Coram:-

HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICAL MEMBER
HON’BLE MS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER



Between

Shri Sankar Basfore,
S/o Late Utima Basfore,
Full Time Casual labour,
O/o Executive Engineer (E),
BSNL Elect. Division Kamrup,
Panbazar, Guwahati, Pin- 781001.

......Applicant

[By Advocate: Mr. M. Chanda, Mrs. U. Dutta, Dr. G.J. Sharma]


-AND-

1. The Union of India,
Ministry of Communication,
Department of Telecom, New Delhi,
(Represented by the Secretary to
The Telecom Commission, New Delhi)
Government of India, New Delhi- 110001.

2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL),
(A Govt. of India Enterprise)
Represented by Chairman cum
Managing Director, Corporate Office, New Delhi- 110001.

3. Thc Chief General Managcr,
Assam Circle, BSNL Bhawan,
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

2

th
4 Floor, Panbazar, Guwahati, Pin- 781001.

4. Chief Engineer (Electrical),
BSNL, Electrical Assam Circle,
Administrative Office Building,
th
6 Floor, Panbazar, Guwahati,
Kamrup(M), Assam, Pin- 781001.

5. Assistant General Manager,
O/o the Chief General Manager
Assam Circle, BSNL Bhawan,
th
4 Floor, Panbazar, Guwahati, Pin- 781001.


...Respondents

[By Advocate: Mr. N. Baruah for BSNL
]

OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

3

ORDER
PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for
the following relief(s):-
“8.1. Impugned letter dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure A1) be
set aside and quashed.
8.2. The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the
respondents to confer temporary status to the applicant at
least w.e.f. 01.09.1999 vis-a-vis similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi
Rao and regularisation on 16.02.2004 as granted to similarly
situated Mrs. Laxmi Rao and junior Sri Pritu Bhushan Roy,
with all consequential benefits.
8.3. Any other relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper, including the cost of the case.”


2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially
engaged in the respondents’ Department as a part-time casual
worker on 01.07.1997. He worked for 240 days in the preceding
12 months and w.e.f. 11.11.2003, he was converted to full time
casual labour. The applicant is a left out casual labour for
regularisation as mentioned in the letter dated 28.05.2011,
which is on account of administrative lapse and error on the
part of the respondents and for which the applicant cannot be
made to suffer. This O.A. is made against the impugned letter
dated 20.07.2023 (received on 26.07.2023), whereby the prayer
of the applicant for grant of temporary status (TSM) and
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

4

regularisation has been rejected, in spite of having worked long
since 01.07.1997 as casual labour and full time w.e.f.
11.11.2003. This application is also made for a direction upon
the respondents to confer temporary status on the applicant at
least w.e.f. 01.09.1999 vis-a-vis similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi
Rao and regularisation on 16.02.2004 as granted to similarly
situated Ms. Laxmi Rao and junior, Sri Pritu Bhushan Roy in
terms of DOT letter dated 29.09.2000, with all consequential
benefits. Hence, this O.A.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the
averments made in written statement and submitted that
applicant has filed the instant OA seeking temporary status
and regularization by citing policies of Department of Telecom,
namely Casual Labourer (Grant of Temporary Status and
Regularization) Scheme, 1989 and letter dated 29.09.2000,
which were enforced more than two decades ago. Therefore, his
prayer is apparently hit by limitation under Section 21 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It is pertinent to mention
that the applicant has not explained any satisfactory reasons
for not approaching this Tribunal within the prescribed
limitation period. In the absence of any cogent and satisfactory
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

5

reasons for condonation of delay beyond three years from the
date of cause of action, his prayer is liable to be dismissed at
the threshold without entering into merits of the case.
Counsel further states that applicant has been engaged as
a part-time casual labour on 01.07.1997. He did not fulfil the
conditions for becoming a TSM as per terms and conditions laid
down in DoT’s TSM Scheme, 1989 circulated vide letter dated
07.11.1989, 17.12.1993 and letter dated 12.02.1999. Further,
it was also stated that there should be no casual labourers left
without temporary status after 01.08.1998(other than those
indicated in serial no. 2 to 5 above). However, if there is still
any casual labourers left due to any reason, that may be
referred to Head Quarter separately. In this regard, it is to state
that the present applicant was a part-time casual labour
during erstwhile DoT regime i.e. upto 30.09.2000 and
converted into a full time casual labourer as per approval
conveyed by BSNL letter no. 269-13/99-STN/Pers IV/AS dated
24.09.2003. Further, with respect to similarly situated
employee viz., Mrs. Laxmi Rao & others, it is to state that they
were not eligible for TSM status as per TSM Policy, 1989 and
as per the subsequent extension letter dated 12.02.1999. The
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

6

said Scheme did not postulate for grant of temporary status to
any casual worker, who was engaged subsequently as and
when he completed prescribed continuity of services. The issue
is no longer res-integra and has already been settled by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in BSNL versus Sri Narayana
Thimapра Madivel (Civil Appeal No. 6176/2008, Judgement
dated 17.10.2008). Besides, it is quite a settled position of law
that part-time casual workers working in erstwhile DTS/DTO
were not covered by the Scheme of 1989 and not entitled for
temporary status, for which reliance is placed upon judgement
of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ministry of Communications & Ors. –
Vs- Sakkubai & Anr, (1997) 11 SCC 224 and Union of India
versus Janakdhari Paswan (Civil Appeal No. 7495/1997
decided on 24.10.1997). Further, while passing the judgment
and order in case of Union of India and anr. Vs Mohan Pal etc .
on 29.04.2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India stated that
–– "However, we make it clear that the Scheme of 01.09.1993 is
not an ongoing Scheme and the 'temporary' status can be
conferred on the casual labourers under that scheme only on
fulfilling the conditions incorporated in Clause 4 of the Scheme,
namely they should have been casual labourers in employment
as on the date of the commencement of the scheme and they
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

7

should have rendered continuous service of at least one year, i.e.
at least 240 days in a year or 206 days (in case of office shaving
5 days a week). We also make it clear that those who have
already been given 'temporary' status on the assumption that it
is an ongoing Scheme shall not be stripped of the 'temporary'
status pursuant to our decision." In BSNL versus Sri Narayana
ThimappaMadivel (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
categorically held that one time nature of the scheme of DoPT
would be squarely applicable in the case of Telecom
Department and scheme of 1989 formulated by them with
different cut-off date of commencement. Besides above, part-
time casual workers working in erstwhile DTS/DTO were not
covered by the Scheme of 1989 and not entitled for temporary
status, for which reliance is placed upon judgement of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ministry of Communications & Ors. Vs.
Sakkubai & Anr, (1997) 11 SCC 224 and Union of India versus
Janakdhari Paswan (Civil Appeal No. 7495/1997 decided on
24.10.1997]. Therefore, in the above-mentioned background,
the precedents cited by the applicant to claim temporary status
are not relevant as the features of the Scheme as well as afore-
said binding precedents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court were
overlooked by the Ld. Tribunal/High Court. It is pertinent to
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

8

mention that the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi(3) and
Ors. [2006 (4) SCC 1], has categorically held that keeping in
view the constitutional scheme of equality, as contained in
Articles 14 in and 16 of the Constitution of India, regularisation
or permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual,
daily-wage or ad hoc employees in public employment dehors
the constitutional scheme is impermissible in law. Therefore,
the prayer of the applicant seeking regularization of his services
on mere long continuity of services, is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended
that the applicant in the instant Original Application has
challenged the letter dated 27.07.2003, whereby grant of
Temporary Status (TSM) has been denied to the applicant. As
such, there is no question of limitation here in filing this
application as stated by the respondents. It is admitted by the
respondents that the applicant was engaged as casual labour
on 01.07.1999 and converted to full time on 11.11.2003 with
continued service till date. As such, he is duly entitled for grant
of TSM status and also regularization as granted to other
similarly situated/junior employees in terms of the extant
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

9

instructions of the Govt. of India. It is clearly evident from the
letter dated 28.05.2011 that the applicant is a left out casual
labour for regularization. As already stated above, similarly
situated employees/juniors have already been granted
temporary status and regularization and the applicant has
been left out both for grant of TSM status and regularization
due to administrative lapses, and error on the part of the
respondents. It is stated that the applicant has been regularly
carrying out his service and duties of regular nature since
01.07.1997 and he has no role in denial of TSM status and
regularization to him, such lapses are solely attributable to the
respondents. It is the settled position of law that the applicant
cannot be made to suffer due to administrative lapses and error
on the part of the administration. It is incumbent upon the
respondents to rectify their lapses and error immediately by
granting temporary status to the applicant at least w.e.f.
01.09.1999 and regularization at least from 16.02.2004. It is
also not denied by the respondents that junior of the applicant,
Sri Pritu Bhashan Roy, who was engaged on casual labour on
01.01.1998 has also been conferred TSM status on 13.03.2003
and regularization by letter dated 16.02.2004 and the
applicant had been subjected to hostile discrimination against
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

10

his junior amounting to violation of Article 14, l6 and 2l of the
Constitution of India. The respondents in their WS, have stated
that similarly situated employees namely, Mrs. Laxmi Rao,
Junior- Sri Prithu Bhusan Roy, Prabir Kumar Bannerjee,
Sambhu Chakaborty, Sibu Sankar Kundu, Rajen Rajkhow
were granted TSM pursuant to the judgment of this Tribunal.
It is categorically stated that this Tribunal, while passing the
above mentioned judgments have already taken into
consideration the judgment of Union of India vs. Mohan Pal
and all other relevant judgments. It is highly arbitrary on the
part of the respondents to deny the similar benefit to the
present applicant as has been granted to other similarly
situated employees. On the contrary, all the judgments referred
to by the respondents in the written statement are not
applicable in the present case of the applicant as the facts and
circumstances of those cases are different. It is clearly evident
from the letter dated 28.05.2011 that the applicant is a left out
casual labour for regularization. As already stated above,
similarly situated employees/juniors have already been
granted temporary status and regularization and the applicant
has been left out both for grant of TSM status and
regularization for administrative lapses, and error on the part
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

11

of the respondents. It is the settled position of law that the
applicant cannot be made to suffer due to administrative lapses
and error on the part of the administration. It is incumbent
upon the part of the respondents to rectify their lapses and
error immediately by granting temporary status to the
applicant at least w.e.f. 01.09.1999 and regularization at least
from 16.02.2004.
Counsel also states that the classification of only part-
time casual labours excluding the full time casual labourers for
grant of temporary status and regularization is arbitrary and
unreasonable and does not seek to serve any purpose; there is
no intelligible differentia for such a classification and no nexus
with any object or purpose sought to be achieved. It is an
unreasonable classification of only part time casual labourers
excluding the full time casual labours for grant of temporary
status and regularization which is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and is not tenable in law.

5. Heard the parties and perused the materials on record.
6. It is an admitted position that the applicant has been
regularly carrying out his service and duties of regular nature
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

12

since 01.07.1997. Even one Letter dated 28.05.2011 also
speaks that the applicant is a left out casual labour for
regularization. However, applicant’s contention is that similarly
situated employees/juniors have already been granted
temporary status and subsequent regularization. Vide letter
dated 16.02.2004, along with the 61 TSM even 27 full time
casual labourers have been regularized. It is also not denied by
the respondents that junior of the applicant, Sri Pritu Bhashan
Roy, who was engaged as casual labour on 01.01.1998 has also
been conferred TSM status on 13.03.2003 and Regularization
vide letter dated 16.02.2004.

7. Respondents have relied upon the judgment in Umadevi’s
case, wherein it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that all
appointments in Government have to be done as per the
Constitutional norms and rules and bye-passing these norms
by engaging causal or ad-hoc engagements is not permissible.
The judgment also provides for one time measure for
regularization of casual or ad-hoc or temporary employees
subject to fulfilment of conditions as stipulated in the
judgment. In the judgment in Umadevi case, it was held as
under:–
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

13

“43. Thus, it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality
in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution
and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a
Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order
upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the
overlooking of the need to comply with the requirements of
Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution.
Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public
employment, this Court while laying down the law, has
necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms
of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among
qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on
the appointee.........”


8. It is also significant to note that the Hon’ble Apex
Court’s judgment in case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. Umadevi
(3) & Ors. is not applicable here in the present case of the
applicant in view of the fact that it is the settled position of law
as laid down by judgment dated 20.12.2024 of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India , Civil Appeal no.
14831/2024 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 558012024) [2024
INSC 1034] that even contractual and casual employees are
entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken
against them otherwise it violates the principles of natural
justice. Further, the case of the applicant is also buttressed by
the Judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India & anr. arising out of SLP(C)
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

14

No. 5580/2024, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as
follows:
“27. In light of these considerations, in our opinion, it is
imperative for government departments to lead by example
in providing fair and stable employment. Engaging
workers on a temporary basis for extended periods,
especially when their roles are integral to the
organization's functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the
organization to legal challenges and undermines
employee morale. By ensuring fair employment
practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security,
and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that
they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with
international standards and sets a positive precedent for
the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the
overall betterment of labour practices in the country.”

9. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that once
similarly situated persons have been granted temporary status
and regularization, we cannot take a different view while
deciding the present case also. Accordingly, the instant OA is
allowed with the following directions to the respondents:

(a) Impugned Letter dated 20.07.2023(Annexure-A/1) is
set aside and quashed.
(b) To confer temporary status to the applicant w.e.f.
01.09.1999 vis-à-vis similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi Rao and
regularisation w.e.f. 16.02.2004 as has been granted to
similarly situated Mrs. Laxmi Rao and junior- Sri Pritu
Bhushan Roy.
(c) Consequential benefits, if any, may also be granted to
the applicant.
OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR

15

(d) The above exercise is directed to be concluded within
a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Order.

10. Pending M.A.(s), if any, stand disposed of. No costs.




(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)




/SK/




OA No. 40/219/2024
SOURABH Digitally signed by
SOURABH KUMAR
KUMAR