Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010183412024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4676/2024 JYOTI PRASAD SAIKIA AND ANR S/O LT. JEWRAM SAIKIA, R/O VILL- DAWGAON, MOUZA- BISWANATH, P.O.CHARIALI, P.S. BISWANATH, DIST. SONITPUR, ASSAM 2: SRI JURI SHARMA SAIKIA W/O JYOTI PRASAD SAIKIA R/O VILL- DAWGAON MOUZA- BISWANATH P.O. CHARIALI P.S. BISWANATH DIST. SONITPUR ASSA VERSUS BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, BHARAT SANCHAR BHAVAN, HARISH CHANDRA MATHUR LANE, JANPATH, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE DIRECTOR (HRD) BSNL CORPORATE OFFICE BHARAT SANCHAR BHAVAN HARISH CHANDRA MATHUR LANE JANPATH NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM ASSAM TELECOM CIRCLE Page No.# 2/5 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING FLOOR PANBAZAR GUWAHATI ASSAM-781001 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER TELECOM DISTRICT TEZPUR SSA BSNL TEZPUR-784001 5:THE TELECOM DISTRICT ENGINEER TEZPUR SSA BSNL TEZPUR- 78400 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N BORAH, MR M.J. BHARALI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, BSNL, MR B HAZARIKA (ALL RESPONDENTS),MR B PATHAK (ALL RESPONDENTS) BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 15-09-2025 (Arun Dev Choudhury,J) 1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel representing the respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL in short). 2. The petitioners are the Casual Labourers, who had been rendering long years of service under BSNL. On 27.05.1996, the Telecom District Manager, Tezpur Circle granted temporary status to the petitioners along with others under the Scheme of “Casual Page No.# 3/5 Labours (Grant of Temporary Status & Regularisation). However, the aforesaid grant of temporary status was held to be irregular by higher authorities of the Department and subsequently, the District Manager, Department of Telecommunication, cancelled the order dated 27.05.1996 granting temporary status to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons. 3. Thereafter, similarly placed persons had approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench by filing Original Application i.e., O.A. No. 239/2009 and other connected cases, assailing the cancellation of grant of temporary status, which was considered along with the batch of Original Applications. 4. The learned CAT, Guwahati Bench, under its order dated 16.07.2010 disposed of the aforesaid applications with the direction to the respondent authorities to treat the Original Applications as individual representation of the individual applicants and to dispose of them by passing a Speaking Order. However, the respondent authorities rejected the claim of the petitioners therein for bestowing benefits under the Temporary Status Mazdoor Scheme including regularization of their services. 5. Some of the similarly situated persons again approached the learned CAT, Guwahati Bench by preferring the O.A.Nos. 205/2011, 282/2011 & 286/2011, assailing the rejection order dated 24.05.2011.Their common prayer before the aforesaid Tribunal was to grant them ‘Temporary Status’ under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme) with effect from 27.05.1996 and to extend all the consequential service benefits. 6. However, such prayer was also rejected and all the original applications were dismissed by the CAT, Guwahati Bench under its common order dated 13.05.2015. 7. Some applicants before the CAT, Guwahati Bench, whose cases were dismissed by the learned Tribunal, approached this Court by preferring separate writ petitions, which were registered as WP(C) Nos. 2228/2016, 2229/2016, 2058/2016 and the same were allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench under its order dated 15.06.2017, with a direction to the Page No.# 4/5 concerned authorities to work out the benefits to which the petitioners are entitled to. 8. Subsequently, in similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench in WP(C) No. 5353/2015, also observed that the determination made in the common judgment and order dated 15.06.2017 passed in WP(C) Nos. 2228/2016, 2229/2016 & 2058/2016, shall cover the similarly situated persons and accordingly, WP(C) No. 5353/2015 was allowed by the order dated 30.08.2017 in terms of the common judgment and order dated 15.06.2017 (supra). 9. Such determination was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court by the Union of India, however, the Hon’ble Apex Court negated such challenge and dismissed SLP(C) No. 24868-24873/2018 under its order dated 29.03.2023, leaving all the questions of law open. 10. Claiming to be similarly situated with that of the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 2228/2016, 2229/2016, 2058/2016, 5353/2015 & 4592/2023, the present writ petition is filed. 11. The BSNL authorities have not disputed that the petitioners in the instant writ petition and the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 2228/2016, 2229/2016, 2058/2016, 5353/2015 & 4592/2023 are factually similarly situated, however, they have raised an objection that the Hon’ble Apex Court, kept the question of law open in its order dated 29.03.2023. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, when the petitioners are admittedly similarly situated, they cannot be refused the benefits that had been granted by the Co- ordinate Bench under its order dated 15.06.2017 and the order dated 30.08.2017. 13. Accordingly, the present writ petition also stands allowed in terms of the common judgment and order dated 15.06.2017 passed in WP(C) Nos. 2228/2016, 2229/2016 & 2058/2016 and the BSNL authorities shall now work out the benefits to which the petitioners are entitled under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization Scheme) and all the consequential benefits to which the petitioners are Page No.# 5/5 entitled to be given. 14. The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed. No cost. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant