Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Presiding Officer,Cat And ANR
! "#$# %&'' (
* %"( )#+ ,-#,# ./*-0 ''''
# # % ) 1 )$2$
) $#.#%+ !!#" )3 % 4.,#%#$
#5 )#62% 4 %. % ( ) ''''
$7 %. % $ 8& 9-8 ' * *8 ** 9-8 ' *1:**
) $ % &
! " #$ %&' () *
+ (
,
#
- + ( '().
( ) ($ .. ).
. 0) .
+
( .
1 () )*, 2( . ) 1 ) .
( .
1
( (
) ( 3444 0 2 ( (
1 .
) 3444
( ).
( )
) .
)(
() + ( ! "
() + ( )/ )( " ( (
) . ( ! 6 (
( . 0)
1 .
) ) 0 0444 +
) 1 7 " #$ &' (
1 8% 4 0 .
. 1 .
. (
1
( () + ( 7 9
. ( :
(
. 0) ( ).
(
1 .
.
) .
( .
1 3 6 .
1 ) ( ( (
(
)
)
4
.
!"#
$ $!
3;/0*<3 ;( .
) . . ) ) (
) < (
)(+
0 =
>
30. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was unfair on the part of the State Government and its officials to take work from the employees on the work charged basis. They ought to have resorted to an appointment on regular basis. The taking of work on the work charged basis for long amounts to adopting the exploitative device. Later on, though their services have been regularized. However, the period spent by them in the work
charged establishment has not been counted towards the qualifying service. Thus, they have not only been deprived of their due emoluments during the period they served on less salary in
work charged establishment but have also been deprived of counting of the period for pensionary benefits as if no services had been rendered by them. The State has been benefitted by the services rendered by them in the heydays of their life on less salary in work charged establishment.
.
) ( .
. 5
1 .
7 " 8% . (
1(
1 (
)( ? @ (
)
A . ( + )
) ( . (
) ) + &
)
) (
)
( )0) 0
).
/.
( 5 . ((
) + . () ;( #!!"%$$!
&
'' ( 'B
! =
>& "5. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or re
fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."
" C . (
) ( =) .. ( !
(
( 7 C . )
( ) / . . .
(
:
) () 3
) .
4 % ) / *8 **0 JUDGE (VIKAS SURI) November 20, 2025 JUDGE Varinder / < > D ( >