SAVITRIBEN CHAUHAN WD/O LATE JAIVIRSINH R CHAUHAN vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

C/SCA/914/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 914 of 2017
=========================================================
SAVITRIBEN CHAUHAN WD/O LATE JAIVIRSINH R CHAUHAN
Versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ORS.
=========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND B GOGIA(5849) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BB GOGIA(5851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MUSKAN A GOGIA(6624) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS PJ DAVAWALA(240) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
RC JANI & ASSOCIATE(6436) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

Date : 05/05/2026

JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)
(1)
The husband of the appellant was working as a
regular Mazdoor at Rajkot. Unfortunately, he passed away
on 15.07.2001 while he was in service. The appellant, being
a widow, requested the respondents for appointing her on
compassionate grounds, taking into consideration that her
husband had worked as a daily wager for 11 years.
(2) The respondents considered her case favourably and
Page 1 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:08:04 IST 2026

C/SCA/914/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
appointed her as a full-time Casual Labourer. It was
specifically stated in the order that it was a special case of
appointment on compassionate grounds, and she was
accordingly given a posting.
(3)
It is not in dispute that, pursuant to the said order,
the appellant herein has been working as a full-time Casual
Labourer for the past 22 years.
(4) The appellant thereafter approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal in the year 2016 seeking for a
direction from the Tribunal to be issued to the respondents
to confer temporary status on the appellant under the
scheme and to extend all consequential benefits to her.
(5) The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the
petitioner had to approach the Tribunal within a year of her
competing a year as casual labourer and she had
approached the Tribunal with a delay of 12 years and the
cause shown by the appellant was inadequate and it has
proceeded to reject the application that had been filed for
Page 2 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:08:04 IST 2026

C/SCA/914/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
condoning the delay. Hence, the appellant is in appeal.
(6) At the outset, we wish to state that the order of the
Tribunal in stating that there was a delay in approaching
the Tribunal is flawed. The Tribunal has proceeded on the
assumption that the appellant was entitled for confirmation
of temporary status on completion of one year, and since
she has come 12 years thereafter, she would not be entitled
to any relief because of the laches.
(7)
The entire case of the appellant is based on the
scheme called “Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary
Status and Regularisation) Scheme”, which was brought
into effect from 01.10.1989.
(8) Clause A of the Rules of the scheme clearly states that
vacancies in Group- D cadres in various offices of the
Department of Telecommunications would be exclusively
filled by regularisation of Casual Labourers, and no
outsiders would be appointed to the said cadre. The only
exception made would be in respect of appointments being
Page 3 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:08:04 IST 2026

C/SCA/914/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
made on compassionate grounds.
(9) Admittedly, the applicant was appointed on
compassionate grounds because her husband passed away
while in service. It is therefore clear that the appellant was,
in fact, entitled to be appointed as a Casual Labourer on
compassionate grounds.
(10) The said scheme, insofar as it relates to grant of
temporary status reads as follows:-
“(i) Temporary status would be conferred on all the casual
labourers currently employed and who have rendered a
continuous service of at least one year, out of which they
must have been engaged on work for a period of 240 days
(206 days in the case of offices observing five day week).
Such causal labourers will be designated as Temporary
Mazdoor.”
(11) As could be seen from the said clause, there was no
question of there being any need to make any claim to be
made for being conferred with a Temporary status.
Temporary status would stand automatically conferred on
Casual Labourers the moment they complete one year of
service. If the Department of Telecommunication did not
Page 4 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:08:04 IST 2026

C/SCA/914/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
confer a temporary status on the completion of one year, it
would basically amount to a recurring cause of action, and
therefore, the question of limitation would never really arise.
(12)
It is to be stated that here that the appellant, being a
widow, ought to have been treated in a fair manner. Having
decided to appoint her on compassionate grounds, the
respondents were wrong in denying her temporary status
after she completed a year as a Casual labourer. The
expectation of the Department or that of the Tribunal that a
claim for temporary status ought to have been made by the
appellant, who was a Group-D employee, is untenable.
(13) We must not lose sight of the fact that the appellant
was a Group-D employee a widow whose husband had
rendered 11 years of service as a Mazdoor. The respondents,
having appointed her as a Casual Labourer, and that too as
a special case, cannot treat her as a Casual Labourer for her
entire life. The very fact that scheme existed in the year
2004, when she was appointed, would automatically entitle
Page 5 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:08:04 IST 2026

C/SCA/914/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
her to all the benefits under the scheme. The benefits of this
scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner by placing
reliance on technicalities, such as limitation, and this would
be wholly improper.
(14) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the
financial benefits that the petitioner would be entitled to
pursuant to the said order, be confined to the past three
years, having regard to the law of limitation elucidate by the
Supreme Court in service matters relating to financial
benefits.
(15) We are of the view that this argument can only be
accepted in part. It is not in dispute that the appellant
approached the CAT only in the year 2016 and this would
therefore, in the fitness of things, entitle the petitioner for
extension of financial benefits pursuant to this order only
from the year 2016 till they are paid.
(16) We are therefore of the view that the order of the
Tribunal dismissing the application on delay cannot be
Page 6 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:08:04 IST 2026

C/SCA/914/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2026
sustained and the same is accordingly set aside.
(17) We wish to state that we are considering the
application on merits having regard to the fact that that
petitioner, a widow, has been discharging her work as a
Casual Labourer for the past 22 years and at this stage
remanding the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh
consideration on merits would not be fair. We, therefore,
have examined the matter on merits and since the petitioner
is entitled to the benefits of the scheme are directing the
respondents to extend all the benefits of the Casual
Labourers, such as grant of temporary status and
regularisation that the scheme provides to the appellant
within a period of three months. The financial benefits shall,
however, only be from 2016 till they are actually paid.
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,J)
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
RIYA
Page 7 of 7
Uploaded by RIYA VISHWAKARMA(HC02365) on Thu May 07 2026 Downloaded on : Mon May 11 12:08:04 IST 2026