[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Dharam Veer vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through ... on 1 April, 2026
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 24.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.04.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 01.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 16123/2023
DHARAM VEER .....Petitioner
Through: Ishita Kadiyan, Advocate.
versus
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH ITS
CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ram Krishan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. The Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in order to challenge the correctness of the order
dated 05.09.2022 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the
„Tribunal‟] in O.A. No. 1837/2015, whereby the said Original
Application filed by the Petitioner, seeking directions to the
Respondents to regularize his services at par with Sh. Naresh Kumar
and Smt. Guddi, came to be dismissed.
2. The primary issue which arises for consideration in the present
Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his
services at par with similarly situated employees, in terms of the
judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed by this Court.
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. The Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent
No.1/BSNL as a casual labourer in the office of Delhi Telegraph
Office („DTO‟), Paharganj, New Delhi, with effect from October,
1995. He continued to discharge his duties without any break till
October, 2001, when the DTO, Paharganj, was closed.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Telegraph Unit (Central
Sub-Divisional Engineer, Central Telegraph Office) maintained a
common seniority list of part-time casual labourers working across
various DTO offices. In the said seniority list, the Petitioner was
placed between Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi. While Sh. Naresh
Kumar, who was junior to the Petitioner, was placed at Serial No. 12,
the Petitioner was placed at Serial No. 13, and Smt. Guddi at Serial
No. 14.
6. In the year 2001, upon closure of the DTO at Paharganj, the
Petitioner was declared surplus. It is further the case of the Petitioner
that similarly situated casual labourers, including Sh. Naresh Kumar
and Smt. Guddi, were re-engaged in other offices. Sh. Naresh Kumar,
who was junior to the Petitioner, having been initially engaged on
10.05.1996, was re-engaged on 22.02.2001. It is further stated that his
services had earlier been dispensed with on 10.09.1998 on account of
alleged misconduct. Smt. Guddi was also re-engaged. However, the
Petitioner was not re-engaged at that stage.
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
7. Subsequently, the services of Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt.
Guddi were regularised, whereas no such benefit was extended to the
Petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner, after making
representations, filed W.P.(C) No. 11774/2004 seeking re-engagement
and consequential benefits, including treatment at par with the
aforesaid employees. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court
vide judgment dated 26.10.2005. The relevant observations are
reproduced as under:
"9. The petitioner admittedly had worked uninterruptedly for six
years. The Unit where he was working was shut down like in the case
of the other employees particularly Smt. Guddi. The policy of BSNL
dated 10.10.2003 clearly indicates that those who had worked on
part-time basis could be treated as full time casual labourers if they
had worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months prior to the date
of issuance of the letter. The petitioner had been by then terminated
from the services. Nevertheless, the stand of BSNL that he could not
avail the benefit of the circular since the unit had been closed, is not
reasonable. This is because in the case of Naresh Kumar, who was
admittedly initially engaged for only two years but terminated on
account of lack of devotion to duty, the respondent even while
applying with the orders of Central Administrative Tribunal,
regularized him in the Central Telegraph Office. In the case of Smt.
Guddi, as far as the facts are concerned, the employee was terminated
on account of the office or unit being Office as part-time Karamchari,
where she was regularised.
10. In view of these factors the charge of discrimination and unequal
treatment has been established. If the BSNL had policy not to engage
any one where unit or office has been shut down and had applied that
policy uniformly there would not have any grievance for the
petitioner. Yet it has chosen the policy of singling out a few employees
for favourable treatment and regularizing them even while denying
that benefit to others. No principle or yardstick have been indicated in
support of this practice.
11. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the respondents have acted in a
discriminatory manner while denying the petitioner re-engagement
and the benefit of the treatment as full-time worker pursuant to the
policies.
12. For the reasons indicated above, the respondents are directed to
offer a suitable post to the petitioner within a period of three months
from today and grant the same treatment as was given to Sh. Naresh
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
Kumar, Smt. Guddi whose instances having discussed above.
13. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above."
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the Petitioner was re-
engaged on 11.03.2006 as a part-time casual labourer and was
thereafter, made a full-time casual labourer with effect from March,
2007. However, the services of the Petitioner were not regularized.
The Petitioner continued to submit representations seeking compliance
of the judgment dated 26.10.2005. The said representations were
ultimately rejected by the Respondents vide communication dated
13.06.2013.
9. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim, the Petitioner
challenged the said communication by initiating contempt proceedings
before this Court being Contempt Case (C) No.740/2013. The said
petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2014 on the ground of
limitation. However, this Court observed that the communication
dated 13.06.2013 gave rise to a fresh cause of action and that the
judgment dated 26.10.2005 ought to have been complied with in letter
and spirit. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing
O.A. No. 1837/2015. The said Original Application was initially
dismissed on 31.05.2016. However, the said order was set aside by
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6164/2016, and the matter was remanded to
the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
10. Upon remand, the Tribunal, by the Impugned Order, dismissed
the Original Application, inter alia holding that the Petitioner has no
vested right to seek regularization. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner
has filed the present Writ Petition.
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
11. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
11.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Impugned
Order passed by the Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law and
contended that this Court, vide judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed in
W.P.(C) No. 11774/2004, had categorically held that the Respondents
had acted in a discriminatory manner in denying the Petitioner re-
engagement and parity of treatment with similarly situated employees,
namely Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi. It was submitted that the
said judgment had attained finality and was binding upon the
Respondents.
11.2. It was further contended that despite the aforesaid directions,
the Respondents failed to extend to the Petitioner the same treatment
as was granted to Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi, inasmuch as
although the Petitioner was re-engaged pursuant to the said judgment,
he was not granted the consequential benefit of regularisation, which
had been extended to the aforesaid employees. It was urged that once
this Court had directed grant of "same treatment", the Respondents
were under a legal obligation to extend all consequential benefits,
including regularisation, particularly when such benefit had been
extended to similarly situated employees.
11.3. It was further contended that the Tribunal erred in overlooking
the fact that the rejection of the Petitioner‟s claim vide communication
dated 13.06.2013 had given rise to a fresh cause of action, as was
expressly observed by this Court while dismissing Contempt Case (C)
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
No. 740/2013 vide order dated 14.10.2014. It was submitted that the
Tribunal, therefore, ought to have examined the Petitioner‟s claim
independently on merits, rather than denying relief on the ground that
no right to regularisation exists.
11.4. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the judgment
of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Jaggo v. Union of India1, to contend
that once similarly situated employees have been granted a particular
benefit, denial of the same to the Petitioner would amount to hostile
discrimination and would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Contentions of the Respondents:
12.1. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents supported the
Impugned Order and contended that the Petitioner, being a casual
labourer, does not possess any vested or enforceable right to seek
regularisation. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court in Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi2,
wherein it has been held that regularisation of casual, temporary or ad
hoc employees dehors the constitutional scheme of public
employment is impermissible.
12.2. It was further submitted that mere continuation of the Petitioner
in service, even pursuant to judicial orders, would not confer any right
to claim regularisation. It was contended that the Petitioner‟s
engagement was not in accordance with the prescribed recruitment
rules and, therefore, no direction for regularisation could be issued.
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826
(2006) 4 SCC 1
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
12.3. It was also contended that the directions issued by this Court in
the judgment dated 26.10.2005 were limited to re-engagement and
grant of treatment at par with similarly situated employees, and cannot
be construed as a direction for regularisation. It was submitted that the
Respondents have duly complied with the said judgment by re-
engaging the Petitioner and treating him as a full-time casual labourer.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
13. In view of the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties, the following issues arise for consideration before this Court:
I. Whether, in light of the judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11774/2004, the Respondents were under a
legal obligation to grant to the Petitioner the same treatment as
extended to Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi, including the benefit
of regularisation?
II. Whether the failure of the Respondents to extend the benefit of
regularisation to the Petitioner, despite extending the same to similarly
situated employees, amounts to hostile discrimination in violation of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
III. Whether the claim of the Petitioner for regularisation is liable to
be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme
Court in Uma Devi (supra) and other subsequent decisions governing
regularisation of casual/temporary employees?
IV. Whether the Tribunal, while passing the Impugned Order dated
05.09.2022, failed to properly appreciate the binding effect and scope
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation?
V. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
Petitioner is entitled to any relief, and if so, to what extent?
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
14. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material on
record.
15. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the Tribunal has
dismissed the Original Application primarily by placing reliance upon
the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra),
BSNL Jammu v. Teja Singh3, and Official Liquidator v. Dayanand
& Others4 to hold that a casual or temporary employee does not
possess any vested right to seek regularisation.
16. While there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid
down in the aforesaid judgments, the controversy in the present case
does not arise in a vacuum. The claim of the Petitioner is inextricably
intertwined with, and flows from, a prior binding adjudication
rendered by this Court inter partes. The applicability of the aforesaid
precedents must, therefore, be examined in that backdrop.
Re: Issue Nos. I & IV- (Binding effect of judgment dated 26.10.2005
and error of the Tribunal)
Civil Appeal 292/2009 decided on 16.01.2009
(2008) 10 SCC 1
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
17. Issue Nos. I and IV, being interconnected, are taken up together.
It is an admitted position on record that the Petitioner had earlier
approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 11774/2004, wherein a
specific grievance of discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis similarly
situated employees, namely Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi, was
raised. This Court, after considering the factual matrix in detail, had
unequivocally held that the Respondents had acted in a discriminatory
manner in denying the Petitioner re-engagement and parity of
treatment. Consequently, a positive direction was issued to the
Respondents to:
"......offer a suitable post to the petitioner... and grant the same
treatment as was given to Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi......"
18. The aforesaid direction is of considerable significance. The
expression "same treatment" employed by this Court cannot be
construed in a narrow or truncated manner. Rather, it necessarily
encompasses all consequential benefits which had been extended to
the said employees, including, where applicable, the benefit of
regularisation. It is not the case of the Respondents that the aforesaid
judgment dated 26.10.2005 was ever challenged before a higher
forum. The said judgment has, therefore, attained finality and is
binding upon the parties.
19. Once a judicial determination inter partes has attained finality
and contains a positive direction, the same is required to be
implemented in its true letter and spirit. The Respondents could not
have selectively complied with the judgment by re-engaging the
Petitioner while simultaneously denying him the consequential
benefits which formed an integral part of the direction.
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
20. In the considered view of this Court, the Tribunal has
fundamentally erred in proceeding to adjudicate the Petitioner‟s claim
as if it were a fresh claim for regularisation, divorced from the binding
effect of the earlier judgment dated 26.10.2005. The Tribunal failed to
appreciate that the issue of parity of treatment between the Petitioner
and the aforesaid similarly situated employees had already been
conclusively determined by this Court. Once such a determination had
been rendered, it was not open to the Tribunal to reopen the issue by
invoking general principles governing regularisation.
21. The reliance placed upon Uma Devi (supra) and other decisions,
though correct in the abstract, was wholly misplaced in the peculiar
facts of the present case, as such precedents cannot be invoked to
defeat a binding inter partes direction issued by a competent Court.
22. Accordingly, Issue Nos. I and IV are answered in favour of the
Petitioner.
Re: Issue No. II (Whether denial amounts to hostile discrimination)
23. The next question which arises is whether the denial of
regularisation to the Petitioner, despite grant of the same to similarly
situated employees, amounts to hostile discrimination.
24. It is not in dispute that the employees with whom parity was
directed, namely Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi, were in fact
extended the benefit of regularisation. As noticed from the record, the
services of Sh. Naresh Kumar were regularised on 12.02.2004, and
Smt. Guddi was also regularised. It is further not in dispute that the
Petitioner was placed in the same seniority framework and was, in
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
fact, senior to Sh. Naresh Kumar. Despite this, the Petitioner was
initially denied re-engagement and, even after re-engagement pursuant
to judicial directions, was denied regularisation. In such
circumstances, denial of the same benefit to the Petitioner, despite a
specific judicial direction to treat him at par with the aforesaid
employees, cannot be sustained.
25. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in Jaggo (supra), has recognised
that where similarly situated employees are treated differently without
any rational basis, and particularly where such disparity persists over a
prolonged period, the Court would be justified in issuing appropriate
directions to remedy the discrimination.
26. In the present case, no intelligible differentia or rational
justification has been placed on record by the Respondents to justify
the differential treatment. The continued denial of regularisation to the
Petitioner, despite a specific judicial direction and despite extension of
such benefit to similarly situated employees, clearly constitutes hostile
discrimination.
27. Issue No. II is, accordingly, answered in favour of the
Petitioner.
Re: Issue No. III (Applicability of Uma Devi and allied judgments)
28. The Respondents have placed heavy reliance on the judgment in
Uma Devi (supra) to contend that no direction for regularisation can
be issued. While the principle laid down in Uma Devi (supra) is well
settled, the same cannot be applied in a mechanical manner so as to
override binding judicial directions rendered inter partes.
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
29. The present case is not one where the Court is being called upon
to direct regularisation in the absence of any prior adjudication.
Rather, it is a case where a competent Court has already directed
parity of treatment, which has attained finality. The enforcement of
such a direction cannot be defeated by subsequently invoking general
principles of law. Moreover, the present case also stands on an
independent footing inasmuch as the Petitioner has continued in
service for a substantial period post re-engagement, i.e., since the year
2006, and has rendered long and continuous service.
30. Issue No. III is, therefore, answered against the Respondents.
Re: Issue No. V (Entitlement to relief)
31. It is also pertinent to note that it is not the case of the
Respondents that the Petitioner lacked eligibility or that his services
were not required. On the contrary, the record indicates that pursuant
to the judgment of this Court, the Petitioner was re-engaged in the
year 2006 and has continued in service thereafter. The Petitioner has
thus rendered continuous service for a substantial period of time post
re-engagement, which, coupled with the admitted discriminatory
treatment, reinforces his claim for parity.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that:
i. The judgment dated 26.10.2005 created a binding obligation
upon the Respondents to extend parity of treatment to the Petitioner;
ii. The Respondents failed to comply with the said judgment in its
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
true spirit by denying regularisation;
iii. The Tribunal erred in overlooking the binding nature of the said
judgment; and
iv. The continued denial of regularisation amounts to
impermissible discrimination.
CONCLUSION:
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Petition is
allowed. The Impugned Order is hereby set aside.
34. The Respondents are directed to regularise the services of the
Petitioner at par with Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi, within a
period of three months from the date of this judgment, with all
consequential benefits, as admissible in law.
35. Accordingly, the present Petition stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
APRIL 01, 2026
jai/pal
W.P.(C) 16123/2023
11:51:54
