AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr.SudhiRanjan Mishra, Member, J.M.
The applicant seeking for direction to the respondents to engage and regularize him as a Regular Mazdoor after confirming temporary status with consequential service benefits taking into consideration the past continuancefrom the year 1997 till 2010 has filed this OA praying for following reliefs:
a)To direct the respondents to extend temporary status in favour of the applicant and regularize his service taking into consideration of his service in respect of Bio-data submitted.
The fact of the case as inter alia averred stated by the applicant in the OA is as follows:
That the applicant was initially engaged as a Driver in the department in the year 1997 and having been continued as a Driver, he used to drive the vehicle bearing registrationNo.OR-06A-7990 of Telecom District Manager, Dhenkanal. Thereafter, he also engaged to drive the vehicle of the S.D.O. The vehicle (Phones, Dhenkanal in the year 2001. Registration Number of the S.D.O. (Phones), Dhenkanal is OSD 4120. So it is a clear proof of engagement of the applicant as a Driver under the respective authorities i.e. Telecom District Manager as well as the S.D.O. (Phones), Dhenkanal, who were the Officers under the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India. The engagement which has been done by the respective authorities also inconsonance of the Government of India instruction guideline as well as the Official order, which was governing the field at the then time where there is no interruption in the work of the applicant to discharge the duty as a Driver while the applicant was continuing in the department. While the applicant was discharging his duty as a driver, monthly payment was paid to him and accordingly the receipt was also given through the authority in order to give the proof of engagement.
That the applicant while was continuing as a casual driver, he had been certified by the Sub-Divisional Engineer(General), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office of the General Manager, Telecom District, Dhenkanal. The engagement showing the proof in connection with working as a casual driver in the departmental vehicle of Telecom District Manager, Dhenkanal and a certificate has been given by the Sub-Divisional Engineer (General), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited authority office of General Manager, Telecom District, Dhenkanal.
That while the applicant was continuing in the department, admittedly he was a scheduled caste candidate and keeping in view to be regularized in near future, the department assured him to continue as a driver and to give a certificate in this regard for consideration of his regularization in the department.
That the department of Telecommunication required the detailed data from the side of the field where the S.D.O. and Telecom District Manager were supervising and in response to the letter, the Department in the Office of the General Manager, Telecom District, Dhenkanal recommended the name of the applicant for regularization. As it is appeared from such recommendation of the General Manager, Telecom district, Dhenkanal, the name of the applicant is appearing at sl. no.2 as a casual driver and the remark column it is shown that the vehicle was driven by the applicant.
That while the instruction from the side of the Office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Odisha has been given the respective casual labourers, the applicant while submitted his Bio-Data has also submitted his proof having been placed in Sl.No.3 on 15.10.2003. The Assistant General Manager (R.E.) in the office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Odisha, Bhubaneswar also visualized the position of the casual labourers, those who are intending to be regularized in the Department. So there is no discrepancy in part of the applicant for raising of his claim for regularization rather than the authority kept it in cold storage without any consideration till now for which the applicant constrained to file such Original Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
That while the applicant was continuing, again the General Manager, Telecom District, Dhenkanal on 23.12.2003 instructed to all District Engineers, Sub-Divisional Officers and Sub-Divisional Engineers to give the details of the daily casual labourers for consideration of temporary status Mazdoor/regular Mazdoor for Dhenkanal Telecom District.
That while the claim of the casual labourers for absorption/regularization was under consideration in the file of the highest dignitaries i.e. Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janapath, New Delhi, a letter from the Office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom, Odisha Circle issued to the respective authorities to give the details.Accordingly, on 14.10.2014 the District General Manager (Administration) required the information of casual workers and contract workers like the applicant to furnish their requisite information in field units enabling them to reach in the Office for consideration. The Office also issued a letter to all heads of the Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in the Country to give the details about the continuance of the casual labourers for consideration of their regularization.
That while the other counter parts have been considered for regularization and have been regularized in the meantime, the applicant being a casual labourer, who had rendered the service in the department in maximum time and having been assured to be regularized in future, but has not been regularized. In this context, on 16.1.2019 the applicant submitted representations before the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Dhenkanal as well as to the Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Odisha, Bhubaneswar.
That while there was correspondence within the Departmental Authorities after receipt of the instructions and guidance from the Corporate Office to submit the detail information with regard to their continuance, all the Heads of the Department of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited noticed to the Casual Labourers to give details of the continuance with regard to their educational qualification and health certificate. But it is worthwhile to mention here that while all the endevours having been made by the Corporate Office to consider the regularization, the Head Office of the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, as stated, they have already submitted their Bio-Data in the year 2003 with candidates statements and declaration.
That while all the endeavors have been made on the part of the applicant addressing to the authority by filing Bio-Data and for consideration of regular Mazdoor, it is before the authority for consideration. Being an authority in the highest level, it has not considered as yet for which it has been delayed in their part and put it under cold storage for conferment of temporary status and regularization with service benefits. Due to such inaction and illegal action without such consideration the applicant preferred this Original Application.
The respondents have filed their counterinter alia averring that OA needs to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches only since the applicant slept over his grievance for an unreasonable long period of more than 23 years. It is submitted that it is well settled decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court that stale claims are liable to be rejected and even repeated representations cannot make a stale claim live for adjudication.
The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating the stand taken in the OA and inter alia averring that after creation of BSNL on 01.10.2000 the respondents remained blissfully silent without implementing it in letter and spirit to all the casual labourers by confirming them in temporary status and due to their negligent attitude, the applicant should not suffer.
Heard both sides and perused the records.
The applicant himself in the OA admits that he was working in the department since 1997 till 2010. The grievance of the applicant is that he was not confirmed with temporary status subsequent to 29.09.2000 of DOT. The applicant waited till 2019 to file this case praying for grant of temporary status. It is submitted that he had filed representations regularly.
It is a well settled principle that delay defeats equity. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.S. Balu vs. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC479 in the following terms:
"17.It is also well-settled principle of law that "delay defeats equity". The Government Order was issued on 15-1-2002. The appellants did not file any writ application questioning the legality and validity thereof. Only after the writ petitions filed by others were allowed and the State of Kerala preferred an appeal there against, they impleaded themselves as party-respondents. It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment. It is, thus, not possible for us to issue any direction to the State of Kerala or the Commission to appoint the appellants at this stage."
The Apex Court in State of T.N. v. Seshachalam (2007) 10 SCC 137 observed that it is now well settled that filing of series of representations cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on the part of the petitioner and Delay or Laches are a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration as law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.
The Apex Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. vs. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322 held that series of representation cannot extend the period of limitation to condone the laches on the part of the petitioner. The Apex Court, at Paragraph 6, held as follows:
6.Delay or laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party.
In C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another (2008)10 SCC 115 the Apex Court held that Reply to the representation relating to matter which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. The replies to such representations cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.
The Apex Court had occasion to examine such a situation in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkarb (2010) 2 SCC 59 wherein the Court held as follows:
"The order of the Tribunal allowing the first application of respondent without examining the merits, and directing appellants to consider his representation has given rise to unnecessary litigation and avoidable complications. When a belated representation in regard to a 'stale' or 'dead’ issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the Court/Tribunal to do so, the date of such decision can not be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the 'dead' issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches."
It is relevant to refer to a Seven Judge Bench judgment in the case of S.S. Rathorevs State of Madhya Pradesh 1989 SCC (4) 582 while dealing with the cause of action in a case of service dispute in view of the special limitation prescribed under Section 21(1)(3) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 and Article 58 of the LimitationAct, 1963, inter alia, held that the repeated representation would not give rise to cause of action nor would condone the delay.
In view of the above discussions and settled position of law, we find that the OA is barred by limitations. Resultantly the OA stands dismissed. Pending MAs stand disposed of. No costs.