LAW OF LIMITATION DOES NOT BAR REGULARIZATION CLAIMS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 & 16.

The applicants, four Telecom Assistants (previously Regular Mazdoors) working in the office of the General Manager, Telecom, Koraput, State-Odisha, filed an Original Application (O.A.) in 2020.

They alleged discrimination in regularization, asserting their continuous engagement since 1996 and seeking temporary status and regularization of their services, citing the regularization of 455 casual employees.

This O.A. was initially dismissed by the Tribunal on 17.04.2025 on grounds of delay.

The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P(C) No. 16688/2025 set aside the Tribunal's dismissal and remanded the matter for a decision on merits on 30.07.2025.

A Review Petition filed by the respondents against this High Court order was dismissed on 10.11.2025.

Originally, there were five applicants, but applicant No.4 was disengaged, and the O.A. was confined to applicants 1, 2, 3, and 5.

The respondents contested the case on both merits and limitation.

1. Whether the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) is obligated to regularize the services of casual workers engaged prior to its formation in 2000?

2. Whether the law of limitation should be applied to debar the applicants from their legitimate right to regularization, especially when other similar employees have been regularized?

3. Whether the decision in Uma Devi (3) and Ors. should be applied to deny regularization to the applicants, despite long continuance and discriminatory treatment?

The Tribunal primarily applied the precedent established by the Full Bench in O.A. No. 654/2015, which relied on significant decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding regularization.

Key Apex Court judgments include Chander Mohan Negi & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2020 (1) OLR –SC-865; Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Vinod Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 327; Dharam Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P & Anr., (Civil Appeal No. 8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025); Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221; and Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2026 SCC Online SC 129.

These cases affirmed that supervening structural changes cannot extinguish accrued claims of pending proceedings and that successor bodies are subject to liabilities arising from prior regimes.

The principle of a judgment in rem obligates authorities to extend benefits to all similarly placed employees without individual litigation.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 156, clarified that the Umadevi judgment should not be indiscriminately used to reject regularization claims, especially for long-serving employees whose appointments were not illegal.

Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution mandate non-discrimination and equality in service matters.

The Tribunal found that the facts and issues in the present O.A. were akin to those decided by the Full Bench in O.A. No. 654/2015.

The Full Bench had concluded that BSNL had a duty to consider regularization for casual workers engaged prior to its formation, applying the principle from Dharam Singh (supra) that structural changes do not extinguish accrued claims.

The Tribunal also determined that the plea of limitation or delay did not apply, citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's view in Dharam Singh (supra) that technicalities should not prevent examination of the legality of refusing sanction.

The Full Bench emphasized that the "law declared" by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts, and referred to the distinction between judgments in rem and in personam, stating that the State is expected to extend benefits of pronouncements in rem to all similarly placed employees.

The Tribunal further noted that the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhola Nath (supra) would govern the field.

The Tribunal underscored that the doctrine of parity and consistency obligates respondents to treat similar individuals alike, and denying regularization to the applicants while 455 others were regularized would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal explicitly rejected the application of Umadevi (3) and Ors. to deny relief, citing Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, which cautioned against weaponizing the Umadevi judgment against long-serving employees with non-illegal appointments.

The Tribunal held that the applicants are entitled to be regularized by the Respondents' Department.

The respondents were directed to issue the compliance order for regularization to the applicants, applying the principles from Jaggo (supra), Dharam Singh & Others (supra), Shripal and Anr. (supra), and Bhola Nath (supra), with effect from the date the other 455 persons were regularized, for the purpose of qualifying service.

This order must be complied with within 180 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.