Direction to consider regularization of casual labourers based on parity with similarly situated employees.

The six applicants were initially engaged as part-time casual laborers in various units of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and were later granted full-time casual labor status

They claimed their names were included in a departmental D.O. letter dated 25.08.2003 issued for the regularization of similarly situated employees

While several other employees were regularized via an office order dated 21.01.2006, the applicants were excluded despite their continuous service

Consequently, the applicants were denied participation in the selection process for the post of Telecom Mechanic under a notification dated 03.07.2014

They approached the Tribunal seeking regularization, full-time status, and a direction to consider their candidature for the post of Telecom Mechanic

1. Whether the applicants have a legal right to regularization and full-time status based on the departmental D.O. letter dated 25.08.2003 and the subsequent regularization of similarly situated juniors

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to participate in the selection process for the post of Telecom Mechanic pursuant to the notification dated 03.07.2014

The court exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The core legal framework involved the BSNL departmental policy for the regularization of casual laborers, specifically the D.O. letter dated 25.08.2003 and the subsequent communication dated 27.02.2014

The court also considered the principle that while mere casual engagement does not confer a vested right to regularization, administrative actions must be non-arbitrary and consistent with established departmental policies when similarly situated employees have been granted benefits

The Tribunal avoided a deep dive into the merits but highlighted that the applicants were conferred full-time casual status and were purportedly included in the original regularization list of 2003

It noted the applicants’ contention that they were victims of arbitrary exclusion since their juniors were regularized as early as 2006

The Tribunal observed that the applicants continue to discharge their duties as full-time casual laborers

Rather than adjudicating the complex facts of entitlement or the respondents' defense regarding the lack of vested rights, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter to the competent authority

It emphasized that the authority must evaluate whether the applicants are entitled to the same benefits extended to their peers under the 2003 and 2006 orders

It directed Respondent No. 2 (Chief General Manager, Telecom) to consider the applicants' grievance for regularization against available regular Group 'D' vacancies

The competent authority is required to pass a reasoned and speaking order within four months from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment

No costs were awarded