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
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
(2017) 1 SCC 148
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.
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
