Tarun Kumar Lal v. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17467 of 2019 ====================================================== Tarun Kumar Lal, Son of Late Kamlesh Narain Lal, R/o Village Betauna, P.S. Benipatti, District- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through the Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi.

2.

The Chief General Manager (Project) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Kolkata.

3.

The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Patna. 4.

The General Manager, Telecom Project, Patna.

5.

The Deputy General Manager, Optical Fibre Cable Project, Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arjun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Renuka Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 28-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The dispute in short is that the petitioner should be extended the benefit of a temporary status and then extended the benefit as has been given to those employees who were previously in the temporary status and upon regularization were given the benefit of pension.

We have examined the contentions raised and the finding recorded by the Tribunal is clearly to the effect that this

Patna High Court CWJC No.17467 of 2019 dt.28-08-2019 2/2 benefit is being claimed at par with those who were given the temporary status, whereas the petitioner was never extended any such benefit.

The petitioner ought to have raised his grievance for being included in the category of temporary status employees when he was very much in service. Now, the petitioner is on the verge of retirement has come up before this Court for seeking such relief. We find that the petitioner belongs to a different category of employees altogether and, therefore, he cannot claim a parity with those who have been extended the benefit of pension by being placed in the temporary status category.

The petition, therefore, lacks merits and is, accordingly, rejected.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) Sunil/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 29.08.2019 Transmission Date