IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 7527 of 2009 Satyendra Prasad Sah, s/o Laxman Sah, resident of Village – Amartha, P O – Goclhai, P S – Gorari, Dist – Rohtas - Petitioner Versus 1) The Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) (HQ), New Delhi 2) The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, Bihar Circle, Patna 3) The Deputy General Manager, Administration, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, Bihar Circle, Patna 4) The Telecom District Manager, Rohtas at Sasaram, G T Road, Mangal Bhawan, P O + P S – Sasaram, District – Rohtas 5) The Divisional Engineer (P & A) BSNL, Rohtas at Sasaram 6) The Sub-Divisional Engineer, B S N L, Bikramganj, P S – Bikramganj, District – Rohtas - Respondents ----------- 2 07.07.2009 The petitioner had come to this Court earlier in CWJC No 2082 of 2005 for regularisation of his services in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The said writ application was disposed of on 10.02.2008 noticing the controversy and remanding the matter for reconsideration. Upon reconsideration, the authorities did not find case of petitioner fit for regularisation in view of various policy guidelines. One of the primal reasons was that there was no evidence of petitioner’s employment at all at any stage with the authority. This was the stand taken inspite of the fact that there were recommendations already for regularisation of the petitioner. In the writ petition, petitioner has annexed several receipts showing payment of daily wages salary to the petitioner for several months under the same authority. Petitioner, thus, submits that the finding is wrong and perverse. Mr Karn appearing for BSNL raises a preliminary objection. He submits that on 31st of October 2008, Government of 2 India issued notification notifying, in terms of Section 14 (3) of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985, BSNL to be one of the authorities covered by the said Act. He submits that now all such disputes including that being raised by the petitioner is cognizable by the Administrative Tribunal which would be the proper forum for the petitioner to move. Having considered the matter, as many factual aspects are also in dispute, I deem it proper to grant leave to the petitioner to seek his remedy and reliefs first before the Administrative Tribunal which is competent and would consider the same in accordance with law. With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of for moving the petitioner before the Administrative Tribunal. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)