Uttarakhand High Court
Chief General Manager & Others ... ... vs Bachan Das & Another on 12 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7073-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 364 of 2015
Chief General Manager & Others ... Petitioners
Versus
Bachan Das & Another ... Respondents
Mr. Suhaas Ratna Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1.
With
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 133 of 2016
Bachan Das ... Petitioner
Versus
Director (Estt.) & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Tej Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Since in these two writ petitions, petitioners
have challenged the same judgment dated 17.6.2015,
rendered by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad,
Circuit Bench at Nainital in OA No. 1452 of 2010, these
are being heard and decided by this common judgment.
However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/B) No.
364 of 2015 alone are being considered and discussed
here.
2025:UHC:7073-DB
2. By the impugned judgment, competent
authority was directed to reconsider the case of Bachan
Das (respondent no. 1 herein) for regularization,
keeping in view that he has worked with Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) for more than 10 years, in
the light of relevant rules and regulations. The said
judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal has been
challenged by the employee as well as the employer.
Writ Petition (S/B) 364 of 2015 is filed by the employer.
3. Mr. Suhaas Ratna Joshi, learned Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argued that
case of respondent no. 1 does not come within the
scheme formulated by BSNL for regularization of casual
labourers, therefore the direction issued by the learned
Tribunal is unsustainable. He further submits that
judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Karnataka & Others v. Uma Devi &
Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, is not attracted to the facts
of the present case and learned Tribunal was not
justified in referring to the said judgment.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent no. 1 submits that respondent no. 1 was
engaged as casual labourer, although he was having
driving license also, in the year 1992 and he served
continuously as such till 2010 and during the said
period, he on several occasions was also asked to drive
the lorry of BSNL. He further submits that there were
three other similarly situated employees who were
engaged as casual labourer and they were also
assigned driving duties from time to time and all such
employees were regularized against Group 'D' post
2025:UHC:7073-DB
under the scheme formulated in the year 1989 and
respondent no. 1 alone was denied benefit of
regularization. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.
1 has drawn our attention to the scheme for
regularization of casual labourers.
5. Learned Tribunal has considered and
discussed all relevant aspects and directed the
competent authority to reconsider the claim of
respondent no. 1 for regularization. Learned Tribunal
further held that the case of respondent no. 1 is
covered by regularization scheme.
6. We do not find any reason to interfere with
the impugned judgment rendered by learned Tribunal.
After serving for more than 18 long years as casual
labourer, respondent no. 1 has earned right to be
considered for regularization and more so, when
similarly situated employees were considered and
regularized. In such circumstances, denial of
regularization to respondent no. 1 was not justified.
Learned Tribunal has simply directed the competent
authority to examine the claim of respondent no. 1 as
per the applicable rules and regulations. We concur
with the view taken by the learned Tribunal.
7. Thus there is no scope for interference. Both
the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the
competent authority to examine the claim of
respondent no. 1 for regularization as per the scheme
of regularization, applicable in respect of Group 'D'
employees in BSNL.
2025:UHC:7073-DB
8. This Court hopes and expects that this
exercise shall be completed and necessary orders shall
be passed within eight weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order before the
competent authority.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
12.8.2025
Pr
PRABODH Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d4
KUMAR
62503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA5
8C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.08.12 18:00:13 +05'30'
