DHARAM VEER vs BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 24.03.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 01.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 01.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 16123/2023 DHARAM VEER .....Petitioner Through: Ishita Kadiyan, Advocate. versus BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ram Krishan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN JUDGMENT ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.: 1. The Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the correctness of the order dated 05.09.2022 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Order‟] passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the „Tribunal‟] in O.A. No. 1837/2015, whereby the said Original Application filed by the Petitioner, seeking directions to the Respondents to regularize his services at par with Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Guddi, came to be dismissed. 2. The primary issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether the Petitioner is entitled to regularisation of his services at par with similarly situated employees, in terms of the judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed by this Court. Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN W.P.(C) 16123/2023 Signing Date:01.04.2026 Page 1 of 13 11:51:54 FACTUAL MATRIX: 3. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. 4. The Petitioner was initially employed by the Respondent No.1/BSNL as a casual labourer in the office of Delhi Telegraph Office („DTO‟), Paharganj, New Delhi, with effect from October, 1995. He continued to discharge his duties without any break till October, 2001, when the DTO, Paharganj, was closed. 5. It is