Synopsis

The petitioner, a casual labourer with BSNL, was denied regularisation despite a prior binding judgment of the Delhi High Court directing that he be given “the same treatment” as two similarly situated employees who had been regularised. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application, relying on the Uma Devi line of cases. The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order, holding that the earlier inter partes judgment had attained finality and was binding; the respondents could not selectively comply by re‑engaging the petitioner while denying the consequential benefit of regularisation. The court directed regularisation within three months.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ. (Division Bench)
Date: April 1, 2026
Citation: 2026:DHC:2678-DB
Core Law: Service Law, Constitutional Law (Articles 14, 16), Res Judicata, Regularisation of Casual Labourers

2. Legal Framework

• Constitution of India: Article 14 (right to equality), Article 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment), Article 226 (writ jurisdiction).

• Service Jurisprudence: Principles of regularisation of casual/temporary employees; binding effect of judgments inter partes; doctrine of finality.

• Precedents:
  Secretary State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1 – regularisation of casual/temporary employees not a matter of right.
  Jaggio v. Union of India – discriminatory treatment between similarly situated employees violates Articles 14 and 16.
  BSNL Jammu v. Teja Singh – cited by Tri

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.