THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA WRIT PETITION Nos.8597, 8624 and 8625 of 2010 and 9593 of 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) Since common question is involved in all these writ petitions, they are taken up together for disposal at the instance of the counsel on either side. Heard Sri R.S.Murthy the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Krishna Devan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/applicants before the tribunal. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are the BSNL, the Government of India Enterprise and its officers seek to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of Writ of Certiorari in assailing the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad allowing the applications filed by the respondents herein purportedly under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act wherein they sought for a relief for consideration of their case for regularization of their services. Admittedly, all the respondents/applicants have been in service on a temporary basis as Part-Time Casual Labourers at various places and for quite some time and there is no dispute in this regard. On the basis of this, the applicants sought the relief for conversion as Full Time Casual Labourers and for regularization of their services in Group-D posts since they have been working for more than 4 hours per day and have completed the minimum requirement of service. This claim was contested by the petitioners in all these cases mainly on the ground that as on fact or under the law they have no such right much-less enforceable one to claim such relief. Further, in view of the fact that all these applicants were the labour engaged by the department through contract and hence they being the contract labour cannot fall in line to become a full time direct casual labour. With these and other submissions as made across from both sides, the Tribunal did not find favour with the objections raised by the petitioners and more so placing reliance on various similar such cases and the directions given therein for similar considerations, allowed the applications and directed that their needs to be considered for full time casual labour. Hence, these writ petitions. In these proceedings as well there is again reiteration of the self same grounds both on behalf of the petitioners in objecting and in opposing and that of the respondents/applicants in asserting their claim. Therefore, the only question, which revolves around for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances can the applicants before the Tribunal be considered for such Full Time Casual Labour and for regularization into Group-D posts. There being no dispute in regard to the aforesaid facts and especially the factum that they have been in employment for quite some time, though as a Part-Time Casual Labour. There is also no dispute to the fact that the very same question has come up for consideration at various points of time where repeatedly at all places, the objections raised on behalf of the petitioners were not accepted and in fact directions have been given consistently to consider their case. Though, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought to place reliance on the Judgment in Civil Appeal No.6176 of 2008, dated 17-10-2008 to show that no such consideration could be given effect to, however on a reading of the aforesaid Judgment, it is not that the apex Court has given any such proposition as sought to be contended on behalf of the petitioners. However, only on the facts of the case necessarily the requirements under the scheme about the employment as on 1-8-1998 being a condition precedent for consideration, the apex Court found that since the employees therein having not satisfied with the same, their cases cannot be considered. Hence, this Judgment of the apex Court could not come to the rescue of the petitioners. This Court in batch of cases in W.A.No.2213 of 2004 and batch, dated 1-2-2005 acceded to similar such request and given direction to the petitioners holding that part-time labourers, who worked in the Company as on 1-8-1998 and completed 240 days, are entitled for granting temporary status and their case required to be considered accordingly. In W.P.11099 of 2004, dated 8-12-2004 similar such direction was given by one of us namely (BPR,J). In another batch of cases in W.P.No.10799 of 2004 and batch a learned Single Judge of this Court, as per orders dated 14-10-2004 allowed similar such request in granting consideration of the cases of the Part-Time Casual Labour to that of the temporary status. In view of the aforesaid Judgments, and there being no other decisions cited across the Bar on behalf of the petitioners, we are of the view that the case of the applicants has rightly been considered from a proper perspective by the tribunal and especially in view of the consistent approach of the Courts and tribunal, we do not find any error warranting interference by the orders of the tribunal. When the matter was posted for ‘pronouncement of Judgment’ on 11-04-2011, Sri R.S. Murthy, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners sought to bring to the notice of this court the orders of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3585 of 2006, dated 10-03-2011, wherein the following order has been passed: “By the impugned judgment, the High Court merely declared that the respondents herein were ent It is fairly brought to our notice that pursuant to the directions of the High Court, the appellant herein had The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with no orders as to costs.” On the reasons already given and also in view of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court upholding the grant of relief of temporary status to such employees, we do not find any reason to come to any different conclusion. There are no merits in the writ petitions and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. __________________ (B. PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (B.N. RAO NALLA, J) DATE: 13-04-2011 grk