- (1.) HEARD counsel for petitioner and Sri Subodh Kumar advocate on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he was engaged as part time casual labourer (sweeper) at Telephone Exchange, Itwa, District Basti in the year 1996 as per the provisions of Rule 154 (A) of the Posts and Telephones Ministerial Manual Establishment Rules. It is stated that the management had taken a decision to convert part time casual labourer into full time casual labourer. In this regard, a policy was framed on 20.1.2003, and in pursuance thereof, the respondents have given approval for conversion of the job of the petitioner into fulltime casual labourer, subject to certain conditions. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : - A. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner at par with temporary Group "D" Employee of Telecommunication Department (BSNL) w.e.f. the date of engagement of service of petitioner i.e. May 1996 and to give the benefits admissible to Group D Employees such as - i. All kinds of leave admissible to temporary employees. ii. Holidays as admissible to regular employees. iii. Counting of Service for the purpose of pension and terminal benefits as in the case of temporary employees appointed on regular basis for those temporary employees who are given temporary status and who complete 3 years of service in that status while granting them pension and other retirement benefits after their regularisation. iv. Central Government Employees Insurance Scheme. v. G.P.F. vi. Medical Aid vii. L.T.C. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to liberate from the ban imposed by order dated 19.12.2012 from taking recourse to the Courts of Law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection about maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that B.S.N.L. has been notified u/s. 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 on 31.10.2008, therefore, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal. Sri Surya Pratap Singh, counsel for petitioner however, placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex court in case of L. K. Verma vs. HMT Ltd, 2006 LawSuit(SC) 69 and in the case of Sanjana M Wig vs. Hindustan Petro Corporation, 2005 LawSuit(SC) 1236 in contending that where there is a breach of fundamental rights, the availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for entertaining the writ petition. He has placed further reliance on another judgement of the Apex Court in Corporation of Calcutta vs. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd, 1963 LawSuit(SC) 203 wherein, it has been held that unreasonable restriction imposed on the right to carry trade or business is invalid, and is to be struck down.;