Regularization claims not barred by delay when discriminatory and violating Articles 14/16.

The applicant, Surendra Kumar Rout, has been continuously engaged as a Casual Labourer under the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phone-III Telecom District, Cuttack since 1994 and alleged discrimination in the matter of regularization of his services

He filed the Original Application (OA) praying for a direction to the respondents to extend temporary status and regularize his service, by quashing an order dated 01.09.2020

The respondents contested the case on merit and limitation

1. Whether the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) is obliged 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 applicants from their legitimate right for regularization in cases involving discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution

3. Whether the impugned order dated 01.09.2020, rejecting the applicant's regularization, is sustainable in law

The Tribunal applied the principles of Article 14 (Equality before law) and Article 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution of India

It relied on the "law declared" by the Supreme Court, which is binding on all courts within India, as per Article 141 of the Constitution

The Tribunal specifically cited several Supreme Court decisions: Chander Mohan Negi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., 2020 (1) OLR –SC-865; Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826; Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 327/2024 (1) SCR 1230; Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another, (Civil Appeal No.8558 of 2018, disposed of on 19.08.2025); Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221; and Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors, 2026 SCC Online SC 129

It also considered the ruling in Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156, which clarified that the Umadevi judgment should not be selectively applied to reject claims of employees whose appointments are not illegal but merely lack procedural formalities

The principle that a judgment "in rem" casts an obligation on authorities to extend benefits to all similarly situated persons was also considered, as discussed in State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva, 2015 (1) SCC Page 347, and Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225

The Tribunal found that the applicant's case was akin to those decided by a Full Bench in OA No. 654/2015, which had ruled in favor of regularization for casual employees based on various Supreme Court precedents

It was established that BSNL, effective from 01.10.2000, inherited the liabilities and obligations concerning casual workers engaged prior to its formation, especially those who had been granted temporary status and regularization through court orders

The Full Bench had confirmed that the BSNL owed a duty to consider regularization of such workers, citing Dharma Singh (supra)

The Tribunal further noted that arguments of delay and laches for raising regularization claims were not applicable, especially when discrimination under Article 14 is involved, referencing K. Thimmappa and others vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and another

It held that the principle of parity and consistency dictates that similarly placed individuals should be treated alike, and since 455 other TSMs/CLs had been regularized, denying the applicant regularization would violate Article 14 and 16

The Tribunal specifically referred to Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India where it was held that relying on Umadevi to deny regularization to employees whose appointments were not illegal but lacked procedural formalities subverts the judgment's spirit

It explicitly held that BSNL is obliged to regularize the services of casual workers who were engaged prior to its formation in 2000

The law of limitation cannot be applied to deny legitimate regularization rights to applicants, particularly in cases involving violations of Article 14 of the Constitution

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the applicant's case for regularization, following the principles set out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jaggo (supra) and Dharam Singh (supra), within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the order

The OA was allowed to this extent