Telangana High Court
K. Bhagawan Reddy And 3 Others vs The Union Of India And 3 Others on 4 July, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION No.5385 of 2020
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.725 of 2017, dated 12.07.2019.
2. Heard Sri D.Linga rao, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for respondent no.1 and Smt. P.Sarada, learned standing counsel for BSNL appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
3. It has been contended by the petitioners that they are working as Casual Labour under the control of respondents- Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and they are seeking regularization of their services in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2560 of 2005 dated 09.10.2014. When the request of petitioners was not 2 considered, petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.725 of 2017 and the Tribunal instead of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization of their services in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2560 of 2005 dated 09.10.2014, has disposed of the O.A., directing the petitioners to submit representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks and on such representation, respondents should pass a speaking and well reasoned orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioners.
4. It has been contended by the petitioners that they are also entitled for 'equal pay for equal work' in terms of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others1. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in 1 (2017) 1 SCC 148 3 W.A.No.2560 of 2005 dated 09.10.2014 and allow the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 had contended that Tribunal was pleased to dispose of the O.A.No.725 of 2017 by directing the petitioners to submit representation and on such representation, respondents should pass a detailed speaking order in terms of the orders passed by the High Court as well as other relevant judgments of superior judicial forums. Therefore, interfering with the order of the Tribunal at this point of time may not be feasible. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the parties, is of the view that the Tribunal has, in fact, disposed of the O.A.No.725 of 2017 in favour of the petitioners, we are unable to understand as to how the petitioners are aggrieved. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal.
4
7. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners in the light of observations made by the Tribunal and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is needless to say that respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners in terms of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2560 of 2005, dated 09.10.2014 and also in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 04.07.2024 kkm