Regularization of services not barred by litigation delays or Uma Devi judgment if name on approved list.

The applicant, Basudev Naik, worked as a casual labourer under the Sub-Divisional Office, Phones, Keonjhar, since 1994 and his name was included in a list of 1437 casual labourers, specifically at Sl. No. 326, approved for temporary status and regularization

Despite preparation of the list and calls for document verification, the regularization process could not be finalized due to various litigations and subsequently became "legally impermissible" after the Supreme Court's decision in *Secretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi*, AIR 2006 SC 1806

The respondents contended that the applicant was not engaged by BSNL, was never appointed against a vacant post, and that regularization was impermissible after the *Uma Devi* judgment and *Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu vs. Teja Singh*

They also raised issues of limitation and res judicata

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to conferment of temporary status and regularization of service, notwithstanding the respondents' arguments regarding the *Uma Devi* judgment, lack of formal appointment, and the formation of BSNL

2. Whether the applicant's claim for regularization is barred by the principles of limitation and res judicata

The Tribunal relied on the legal maxim "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit" (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), emphasizing that litigants should not suffer due to judicial delays

It applied the principle that a successor body (BSNL) steps into the shoes of its predecessor (DoT) and is subject to liabilities arising from the prior regime, as held in *Dharma Singh*

The court also invoked the principle of judicial precedents, stating that the "law declared" by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts under Article 141 of the Constitution, and a subordinate court is bound by the enunciation of law made by superior courts

It further distinguished between judgments in rem and in personam, noting that the State and its instrumentalities are expected to extend benefits of judicial pronouncements in rem to all similarly placed employees without forcing individual litigation, as per *State of UP Vs. Arvind Kumar Shrivastva*

The Tribunal referenced the principle that delay and laches may not apply if there is an infraction of Article 14, citing *K. Thimmappa and others vs. Chairman, Central Board of Directors, State Bank of India and another*

Additionally, it highlighted that the latest law from the Supreme Court governs the field and is applicable retrospectively from inception, citing *M.A. Murthy Vs State of Karnataka & Ors*

The judgment also cited a series of Supreme Court decisions asserting the right to regularization for casual/daily rate workers, including *Chander Mohan Negi and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.* (2020), *Jaggo Vrs. Union of India and Others* (2024), *Vinod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.* (2024), *Dharam Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P & Another* (2025), *Shripal and Anr. vrs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad* (2025), *Bhola Nath Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors* (2026), and *Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India* (2026), which clarified the application of *Uma Devi*

The Tribunal found that the applicant's name was officially approved at Sl. No. 326 in a list of casual labourers for regularization, and documents were called for verification

The Tribunal applied the maxim "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit," determining that the applicant should not suffer due to delays in regularization caused by previous litigations

It dismissed the respondents' contention that BSNL was not accountable for regularization, citing their own admission that the process was ongoing until 2006, and drawing on the *Dharma Singh* precedent that BSNL, as a successor body, inherited obligations from DoT

The Tribunal’s Full Bench had previously overruled similar objections regarding limitation and res judicata in OA No. 654/2015, which the present bench affirmed, holding that the present OA was filed within the limitation period and that the delay was not intentional but due to internal processes and previous rejections following representations

Moreover, the Tribunal emphasized that recent Supreme Court judgments, including *Jaggo*, *Dharam Singh*, *Bhola Nath*, and *Pawan Kumar*, overruled the selective application of *Uma Devi* and mandated regularization in cases where appointments were not illegal but merely lacked procedural formalities, upholding that such consistent judicial pronouncements are binding and should be extended to all similarly placed persons

It directed the respondents to regularize the applicant's services within 180 days from the date of receiving the order, based on the binding precedents of the Supreme Court, which clarified the scope of regularization despite the *Uma Devi* judgment and rejected arguments based on limitation and res judicata

The Tribunal explicitly stated that the BSNL is obliged to regularize the services of applicants engaged prior to its formation in 2000, and that limitation, as stretched, cannot bar legitimate rights for regularization