REGULARIZATION: Long-serving casual workers' claims for regularization cannot be rejected on grounds of delay.

The applicant, Sachidananda Rout, aged 47, has been working as a casual labourer under the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phone-III, Cuttack, since 1994

He filed the O.A. alleging discrimination in regularization, arguing that he should be granted temporary status and regularization given his long engagement, especially in light of 455 other casual employees being regularized

The respondents objected, contesting the case on both merit and limitation

His request for regularization was previously rejected via an order dated 01.09.2020

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

Whether the applicant's claim for regularization is barred by limitation and laches

Whether the Tribunal was justified in denying relief to the applicant by relying upon the decision in Umadevi (3) and Ors.

The court primarily applied the principle that a successor body steps into the shoes of its predecessor subject to liabilities and obligations arising from the prior regime, as held in *Dharma Singh (supra)*

It relied on Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which mandates that the "law declared" by the Supreme Court is binding upon all courts within India, emphasizing that this "law declared" represents the principle of law emanating from a judgment

The court distinguished between judgments *in rem* and *in personam*, noting that for judgments in rem, authorities are obligated to extend benefits to all similarly placed employees without individual litigation, as per *State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva, (2015) 1 SCC 347* and *Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ram Gopal, (2021) 13 SCC 225*

The court also invoked the principle that petitions cannot be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches if there is an infraction of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as held in *K. Thimmappa and others vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and another, 2001 (2) SCC 259*

The court also referred to the principle that a decision of the Hon’ble Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of its stage of pendency, as what is enunciated by the Supreme Court is the law from inception, per *M.A. Murthy Vs State of Karnataka & Ors, 2003 (7) SCC 517*

Key precedents relied upon for regularization included *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*

*Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India, 2026 INSC 156*, was highlighted for its interpretation of *Umadevi (3) and Ors.* in the context of regularization

The court found that the facts and issues in the applicant's O.A. were akin to those decided by the Full Bench in O.A. No. 654/2015

Applying the precedent from *Dharma Singh (supra)*, the court asserted that BSNL, as a successor body, inherited the obligations to consider the regularization of casual workers engaged prior to its formation

Regarding limitation, the court noted that the present O.A. (filed 27.08.2015) challenged an order dated 26.06.2015, which was within the one-year limitation period under the AT Act, 1985

It further reasoned that any delay was not intentional but due to internal correspondence and the long history of engagement, and that technicalities like delay should not bar legitimate claims, especially where discrimination under Article 14 is alleged

The court specifically cited *State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva* to explain that judgments *in rem* on policy matters like regularization obligate authorities to extend benefits to all similarly situated persons, overriding typical laches arguments

The court emphasized that the latest Supreme Court pronouncements, particularly *Bhola Nath (supra)* and *Pawan Kumar (supra)*, bind them, and these cases support regularization, even clarifying *Umadevi (3)* to prevent its misapplication against deserving employees

Given that BSNL had already regularized 455 Temporary Status Mazdoors (TSMs)/Casual Labourers (CLs), denying regularization to the applicant would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution

The impugned order dated 01.09.2020 was quashed

The respondents were directed to regularize the applicant's service by 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 court explicitly held that the BSNL is obliged to regularize the services of the applicants after it came into effect in 2000, and mandamus can be issued to that effect

It also held that the law of limitation, as stretched, cannot debar applicants their legitimate right for regularization