JUDGMENT : (Suman Shyam, J.) : 1. Heard Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.De, learned counsel for the writ petitioners. We have also heard Mr. M. Nath, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and the General manager, Arunachal Pradesh Business Area of BSNL have jointly approached this Court assailing the judgement and order dated 04/08/2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Gauhati Bench, in Original Application (OA) No. 040/00205/2009 inter-alia contending that the impugned judgement and order is unsustainable in law. It appears that this is the third round of litigation involving the same controversy. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of this writ petition, shorn of unnecessary details, are narrated herein below. 3. As many as 52 applicants including some of the private respondents, who were earlier engaged as casual labourers under the BSNL authorities, primarily being aggrieved due to non-consideration of the cases for grant of Temporary Mazdoor status and/or regularization of their services, had approached the learned CAT by filing an application which was registered as OA No. 205/2009, inter-alia, praying for the following reliefs :- “8.1 Direct the Respondent Authorities to regularize the service of your Applicants forthwith w.e.f the date when similarly situated casual employees were regularized; 8.2 Direct the Respondent authorities to withdraw the applicants as Contractual workers from the contractors and to place them directly under the BSNL authorities as Casual Labourers/Mazdoors and to treat them at par with those 174 Casual Employees till their services are regularized; 8.3 Direct the Respondent authorities to pay the Productivity Link Incentives to the Applicants w.e.f the year 2005-2006 onwards amounting to Rs. 3000/- per annum; 8.4. Direct the Respondent authorities to grant the benefit of recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission; 8.5 Cost of the Application; 8.6 Any other relief(s) that may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal.” 4. By way of interim relief, the applicants had prayed for an order directing the authorities to withdraw them as contractual workers and to place them directly under the BSNL authorities as Casual Labourers /Mazdoors and to treat them at par with 174 other casual employees. 5. By way of interim relief, the applicants had prayed for an order directing the authorities to withdraw them as contractual workers and to place them directly under the BSNL authorities as Casual Labourers /Mazdoors and to treat them at par with 174 other casual employees. 5. The pleaded case of the applicants/private respondents, as apparent from the application, is that they were all engaged as full time Casual Labourers/Mazdoors by the BSNL authorities (formerly known as Department of Telecom, Government of India) in the different districts of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, under the overall supervision of a Sub-divisional Officer of Telecom. According to the applicants, they were engaged as Casual Labourer by the BSNL authorities on various dates ranging from November 1993 to February, 2000. The applicants had claimed that pursuant to their engagement, all of them had completed 240 days of continuous work in a calendar year, on full time basis, until such time, their services were placed under the contractor on contractual basis by the BSNL with effect from 20/07/2007. 6. The applicants have stated in the O.A. that on 01/09/1999, the Assistant Director General (STN), Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi, had issued a letter to all the Chief General Managers of Telecom Circles as well as the Telecom Districts, issuing directions for regularization of service of all casual labourers and/or grant of temporary status to such labourers, who have been working under the BSNL. Accordingly, approval for grant of temporary status to all the casual labourers eligible as on 01/08/1998 and for regularization of their services with temporary status for those who were eligible as on 31/03/1997, was also conveyed by the competent authority. Thereafter, vide order dated 29/09/2000, the Assistant Director General (STN) had issued further direction to the concerned authorities for regularization of the services of the casual labourers working in the Department with effect from 01/10/2000 including those who have been granted temporary status. According to the above instructions, the casual labourers including all full time casual labourers were to be adjusted against the available vacancies of regular Mazdoors. On 02/01/2001, the Department of Telecom (DoT) had issued an order providing for regularization of all casual labourers including part-time casual labourers, left out cases, if any. According to the above instructions, the casual labourers including all full time casual labourers were to be adjusted against the available vacancies of regular Mazdoors. On 02/01/2001, the Department of Telecom (DoT) had issued an order providing for regularization of all casual labourers including part-time casual labourers, left out cases, if any. Thereafter, on 19/04/2001, the Assistant Director General had issued another letter directing all the Telecom authorities to send the names of “left out” casual labourers for regularization of their services, which was to be furnished by the Internal Finance of Circle and the Chief General Manager. 7. It is the further pleaded case of the applicants that pursuant to the letter dated 19/04/2001, a list of casual labourers, containing 382 names, was forwarded to the BSNL Headquarters for regularization of their services but vide letter dated 06/12/2001, approval from the BSNL Headquarters was granted for regularization of the services of only 199 casual labourers. The cases of remaining 183 casual labourers did not receive the approval for their regularization. According to the applicants, these 183 casual labourers included 154 casual employees from Nagaland, 5 employees from Manipur and 24 from Arunachal Pradesh. However, while preparing the list of 382 casual labourers, the names of 54 casual labourers i.e. the 52 applicants and 2 other similarly situated casual labourers, who were serving under the BSNL in the State of Arunachal Pradesh had been inadvertently left out although they were all serving as casual labourers under the BSNL during the relevant period of time. Having realized the aforesaid lapse, by letters dated 07/06/2002 and 10/12/2002, the names of the applicants were forwarded by the General Manager recommending regularization of their services. 8. The applicants have further pleaded that in the letter dated 07/06/2002, it has been clearly mentioned that the list had been prepared after scrutiny of the previous lists and after consultation with the BSNL employees’ Union. Thereafter, the Chief General Manager, BSNL had written a letter dated 30/03/2004 confirming the above facts including the fact that 54 casual labourers were left out from the earlier list as the cases were kept pending for want of updation, consolidation and due to certification by the Circle IFA & CGMT. The letter dated 30/03/2004 contains the list of 228 casual labourers including the 54 casual labourers who were shown as left out. The letter dated 30/03/2004 contains the list of 228 casual labourers including the 54 casual labourers who were shown as left out. 52 out of those 54 casual labourers are the applicants in the Original Application No. 205/2009 instituted before the learned CAT. According to the applicants, 174 out of the 228 casual workers, including those who were juniors to the applicants, were retained by the BSNL and were paid daily wages of Rs. 234/- whereas, the 54 other casual labourers, who were senior and were doing the same work, were placed under the contractor on 20/07/2007. Since then, these 54 casual workers have been paid daily wage of Rs. 180/-only, that too, for 15 days a month. Aggrieved by such discriminatory treatment meted out to them, the applicants had submitted representations dated 09/01/2007, 24/08/2007, 10/07/2008, 11/08/2008, 02/02/2009 and 14/05/2009, ventilating their grievances in the matter. However, the said representations had failed to evoke any response from the authorities, as a result of which, the applicants/ private respondents, were compelled to approach the learned Tribunal by filing the OA No. 205/2009. 9. The BSNL had filed additional written statement in the O.A. whereby, they have taken a stand that none of the applicants had completed 240 days in a calendar year and hence, were not entitled to temporary status/regularization. 10. It further appears from the record that the learned Tribunal had earlier passed an order in OA No. 205/2009 and few other connected proceedings being Transfer Application nos. 3/2009, 10/2009, 29/2009, 39/2009, 62/2009 and OA No. 195/2009, allowing the prayers made by the casual labourers. The said order was, however, put under challenge by the BSNL in a series of proceedings, the lead case being WP(C)2945/2011, which were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 19/03/2013, with a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the claim of the workers of having worked for 240 days continuously in a given calendar year. Accordingly, the matter was taken up by the learned Tribunal once again. After fresh consideration of the matter, the learned CAT by the order dated 08/04/2014 came to the conclusion that the private respondents had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year and, therefore, were entitled to grant of temporary status. Accordingly, the matter was taken up by the learned Tribunal once again. After fresh consideration of the matter, the learned CAT by the order dated 08/04/2014 came to the conclusion that the private respondents had worked for more than 240 days continuously in a calendar year and, therefore, were entitled to grant of temporary status. The order dated 08/04/2014 passed by the learned Tribunal was once again challenged by the BSNL authorities before the Division Bench by filing WP(C) No. 3386/2015, which was disposed of by the judgement and order dated 28/10/2021 thereby, once again remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal. The operative part of the order dated 28/10/2021 is reproduced herein below for ready reference :- “7. The Tribunal will also look into the aspect as to how fresh part-time Casual Workers, who are junior to the private respondents, were retained by the BSNL directly under them while the services of the private respondents were taken through contractors since this could be one of the reasons as to why in some cases the private respondents could not complete 240 continuous working days. 8. Let the Tribunal decide the matter as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” 11. Pursuant to the order dated 28/10/2021 passed by the Division Bench in WP(C) No. 3386/2015, the learned CAT had reconsidered the matter and thereafter, passed the impugned judgement and order dated 04/08/2023. 12. In the above context, it would be pertinent to note herein that from the records placed before this Court, it appears that the relevant file for ascertaining the claim of the private respondents of having worked for more than 240 days in each of the 03 years as on 31/03/2004 so as to entitle them to receive Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI), which was also paid to them for the year 2003-04 and 2004-05 was file no. A-642, N/S 1 to 6, which was also referred to by the learned Tribunal. However, it appears that due to a typographical error, the wrong file being file No. A-672 was produced, which did not reflect the correct position of facts. 13. Contending that the BSNL authorities ought to have followed the principles of “last come first go”, the applicants had complained of hostile discrimination by the authorities, thus, depriving them of their genuine dues under law. 13. Contending that the BSNL authorities ought to have followed the principles of “last come first go”, the applicants had complained of hostile discrimination by the authorities, thus, depriving them of their genuine dues under law. In support of the above contention, the applicants had relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of G. Varandani Vs. Kurukshetra University & another reported in (2003) 10 SCC 14 as well as the State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 to contend that the authorities have acted in violation of the basic norms of “last come first go” as well as “equal pay for equal work”. 14. In their written statement, the BSNL authorities had contested the claim of the applicants by contending that the applicants having been engaged as casual contract workers under the contractor with effect from 20/07/2007, they cannot maintain any claim for conferment of either temporary status or regularization of their service as they do not come within the strict parameters of the scheme of 1989. 15. It would be relevant to mention herein that the department of Telecommunication had earlier come up with a scheme viz. “Casual Labourers (grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989” (herein after referred to as the Scheme of 1989) inter-alia providing that a casual labourer, who has completed at-least 240 days in engagement as casual labourer in the Department in 12 calendar months preceding the date of his engagement/retrenchment and has been in continuous engagement as on 01/10/1989, would be entitled to conferment of temporary status under the scheme. The scheme was to be made applicable in case of a particular class of casual labouers who were eligible for regularization as an one-time measure. As such, it is the admitted position of fact that the scheme of 1989 was framed with a view to regulate the affairs of conferment of temporary status upon the casual labourers and/or regularization of their services subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the scheme. 16. As such, it is the admitted position of fact that the scheme of 1989 was framed with a view to regulate the affairs of conferment of temporary status upon the casual labourers and/or regularization of their services subject to fulfillment of the conditions of the scheme. 16. It also appears from the record that out of the 52 applicants who had filed the Original Application No. 205/2009, as many as 10 (ten) of them had left their job as casual labourers and 3 (three) had died, as a result of which, only 39 applicants who are the private respondents in this writ petition, are pursuing the matter. It further appears that save and except the prayer to consider their cases for payment of wages as casual labourers engaged directly under the BSNL instead of a contractor, the applicants are not pressing for any other reliefs. 17. After taking note of the grievance expressed by the applicants and on consideration of the stand of the BSNL authorities, the learned CAT, by the judgement and order dated 04/08/2023, had disposed of the OA No. 205/2009, by making the following observations :- “14. It is noted that the respondents neither denied about the authenticity of the documents/Note-sheets enclosed by the applicants nor they could establish by showing that the so called 150 employees out of 174 employees were not junior to the applicants but retained with the BSNL. Admittedly, due to austerity reason, the applicants are being paid for 15 days which is less than half of the monthly payment to those 150 persons, who were junior to the applicants, but retained by the BSNL by violating the principle of “last come first go”. If the applicants would have been retained in BSNL, they obviously would not suffer financial loss due to austerity reason and would get equal pay for equal work at par their juniors. If the applicants would have been retained in BSNL, they obviously would not suffer financial loss due to austerity reason and would get equal pay for equal work at par their juniors. As such applicants presently due to their older age and long battle, have restricted their prayer to the extent that they should be put under the BSNL instead of contractor as per seniority list, therefore, for the ends of justice, we direct the respondents to put the applicants (presently 39 in numbers) under BSNL, directly to redress their grievance and mitigate their economic distress for not following the principle of “last come first go”, with immediate effect within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 15. Accordingly, OA is disposed of with the above observations and directions with no order as to costs.” 18. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 04/08/2023, the BSNL authorities are before this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 19. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners has argued that the relief granted to the applicants by the learned CAT is based on an erroneous assumption that the applicants had worked under the BSNL continuously for a period of 240 days in a calendar year during the relevant period but there was no evidence on record for the learned Tribunal to arrive at such a conclusion. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, the applicants had voluntarily left their job under the BSNL and joined the contractor w.e.f. 20/07/2007. The fact that the applicants had remained silent for a long period of time before approaching the learned Tribunal, according to Mr. Bhattacharyya, is sufficient proof of the fact that the applicants were themselves aware that being in contractual engagement under the contractor, they were not entitled to any relief. Contending that it is a clear case of un-explained delay and laches on the part of the applicants in approaching the Tribunal, Mr. Bhattacharyya has further submitted that the impugned judgement and order dated 04/08/2023 is perverse in the eyes of law and hence, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. 20. Resisting the above arguments, Mr. Bhattacharyya has further submitted that the impugned judgement and order dated 04/08/2023 is perverse in the eyes of law and hence, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. 20. Resisting the above arguments, Mr. M. Nath, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents has submitted that it is the pleaded case of the applicants that they were illegally placed under the contractor on 20/07/2007 by the BSNL while the applicants were serving as casual labourers under the BSNL authorities but such claims could not be disputed by the writ petitioners. On the other hand, submits Mr. Nath, the documents on record, placed before the learned Tribunal including the letter dated 30/03/2004, clearly goes to show that the applicants were engaged as casual labourers directly under the BSNL and they were placed under the contractor by the BSNL authorities with effect from 20/07/2007. Contending that his clients have given up other claims including the claim of Temporary Mazdoor Status (TMS) and regularization, Mr. Nath submits that the only relief that his clients are seeking at this stage is to treat them as casual labourers under the BSNL and to pay them the wages accordingly, which would come to Rs. 18,423/- per month instead of Rs. 8,373.30P which they had been paid by the contractor w.e.f. 20/07/2007. Mr. Nath, learned senior counsel for the respondents has, therefore, submitted that having spent the best time of their lives working as casual labourers under the BSNL authorities and having functioned under extremely difficult conditions and in hostile terrains of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, all that his clients are asking for at this stage is payment of bare minimum wage, which is necessary for their survival with the family. 21. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the materials available on record. 22. From a reading of the averments made in the OA, more particularly, the statements made in para 4.8 of the application, it is apparent that according to the applicants, their services were not regularized as casual employees by the BSNL authorities for no fault on their part although the applicants were entitled for the same. 22. From a reading of the averments made in the OA, more particularly, the statements made in para 4.8 of the application, it is apparent that according to the applicants, their services were not regularized as casual employees by the BSNL authorities for no fault on their part although the applicants were entitled for the same. Instead of regularizing their services, the BSNL authorities have all of a sudden placed them under a contractor with effect from 20/07/2007 while retaining 24 other casual employees from the State of Arunachal Pradesh, some of whom were junior to the applicants, as casual employees under the BSNL. Subsequently, those junior casual labourers were regularized by the BSNL. Such assertion of the applicants could not be specifically denied by the writ petitioners/respondents in the written statement filed in the OA nor has any material been brought on record of this case so as to displace the above claim. 23. After inspecting the departmental File No A-642 N/S-1 maintained by the BSNL the learned CAT has recorded a finding of fact that the 54 casual employees had completed 240 days of work in each of the 03 years as on 31/03/2004 and were entitled to Productivity Linked Incentive (PLI). The learned Tribunal has also observed that when the matter was pending before the higher authorities the BSNL had withdrawn the 52 applicants and 2 other casual employees from work on 20/07/2007 and placed them under the contractor for the same work. Such find of fact is also duly supported by the inter-departmental communication including the letter dated 30/03/2004. There is no cogent material placed before this court by the writ petitioners so as to disturb such findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal. 24. We have already noticed that the letter dated 30/03/2004 issued by the Chief General Manager, BSNL, NE Telecom Circle contains a list of 228 employees including the applicants herein. Since the applicants as well as the learned Tribunal have placed heavy reliance on the letter dated 30/03/2004 we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the letter dated 30/03/2004 herein below for ready reference :- “Dear Sir, This is regarding regularization of pending casual labouers in NE II Telecom Circle. Since the applicants as well as the learned Tribunal have placed heavy reliance on the letter dated 30/03/2004 we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the letter dated 30/03/2004 herein below for ready reference :- “Dear Sir, This is regarding regularization of pending casual labouers in NE II Telecom Circle. In this connection you may kindly refer your office letter 269-94/98-STN II-Pers-IV/NE II dated 20.12.03 in response to our letter requesting for issue of early approval for the pending cases vide CGMT/NEII/Admn/TSM/59(i)/10 dated 24/11/2003 forwarded during 2001, 2002 and 2003. In pursuance of instructions contained in BSNL HQ letters 269-94/98-STN II-Pers IV dated 19/04/2001, a list containing 382 cases of casual labourers to be regularized was forwarded duly signed by the Circle IFA and the then CGMT on 24/08/01 vide letter STB-60/Lab/TE/Corr/Loose dated 24/08/01. We have received approval for 199 cases from BSNL HQ vide letter No. 269-94/98-STN II/Pers.IV dated 06/12/2001 leaving a balance of 183 as pending cases (NLD-154, MNP-5 and ARP-24). Further it is also seen that two more lists were forwarded subsequently by the Circle Viz. (a) A list of 54 left out cases [CGMT/NE II/Admn/RM/50/93 dated 19.09.2002 (49) and CGM/NE II/Admn/RM/50/102 dated 07/01/2003 (5)] pertaining to ARP, SSA which were left out in the earlier forwarding letter. (b) A list of 150 pending cases of Nagaland SSA [CGM/NE II/Admn/RM/50/111 dated 07/02/03], updating the pending list of 154 subsequent to the approval conveyed by BSNL HQ on 06/12/2001 (Out of 154 pending cases, 4 have left the SSA). It is understood that the cases are kept pending for want of updation, consolidation and due certification by the Circle IFA and CGMT. So, after updating and consolidating, a fresh list containing 228 cases of casual labours requiring regularization, as on date, is forwarded herewith. No fresh casual labour is engaged after forwarding of the said list by the circle and hence there are no fresh cases.” 25. A bare reading of the letter dated 30/03/2024, the contents whereof are not in dispute, leaves no room for doubt that the 54 left out cases which, includes the present applicants, were amongst the 228 casual labourers, who were recommended for regularization. The aforesaid letter could not have been issued by the Chief General Manager, BSNL NE Circle without proper verification of the departmental records. The aforesaid letter could not have been issued by the Chief General Manager, BSNL NE Circle without proper verification of the departmental records. It is also appears from the materials on record that the casual labourers, who were junior to the applicants, were not only retained by the BSNL but some of them were also regularized. If that be so, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the applicants/ private respondents, who were standing on equal footing with the other casual labourers referred to above, were treated un-equally by the BSNL authorities thereby, not only denying them the benefit of regularization of services as casual labourers but also depriving them of the daily wages, which they would have been entitled to had they been continued as casual labourers under the BSNL although such benefits had been extended to the other similarly situated casual labourers. We, therefore, hold that it is a clear case where equals have been treated un-equally. 26. Having observed as above, we must also put on record that in his usual fairness, Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners has disarmingly submitted that if it is really the case that the applicants had not voluntarily left their jobs they were withdrawn by the BSNL and placed under the contractor then in that case, the BSNL cannot deny their liability to treat the applicants at par with the other similarly situated casual labourers, more particularly the 24 casual labourers belonging to the State of Arunachal Pradesh, whose services were regularized as casual labourers. 27. The underlying philosophy of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India strikes at arbitrariness in the action of the State and its instrumentalities. The principle of fairness and equality of treatment is a necessary concomitant of non-arbitrariness in state action and therefore, is an essential facet of Article 14. The action of the State in all spheres must not only be right but also just and fair as otherwise the same would be patently destructive to the basic principles of Rule of Law. 28. The action of the State in all spheres must not only be right but also just and fair as otherwise the same would be patently destructive to the basic principles of Rule of Law. 28. In the present case, the action on the part of the BSNL authorities in withdrawing the applicants as casual labourers and placing them under the contractor with effect from 20/07/2007 while retaining persons junior to the applicants, on the face of it, appears to be arbitrary, discriminatory, fanciful and oppressive, resulting in deprivation of the applicants/ private respondents of their genuine dues under the law. Although Mr. Nath has submitted that at this stage his clients are only seeking full time wages by treating them as casual labourers under the BSNL, it is apparent that having run from pillar to post for nearly two decades seeking justice and considering their old age and fragile financial conditions the applicants/ private respondents are willing to settle for the bare minimum that is necessary for their survival. As such, we are of the opinion that such concession on the part of the applicants is driven more out of a sense of despair and frustration rather than in deference to any legal principle. When it comes to the question of infringement of the fundamental rights of the citizens, a mere concession from the counsel , in our opinion , cannot be a valid ground for the court to deny relief to which, the aggrieved party may otherwise be found to be entitled to under the law and equity. 29. In the case of Union of India vs S.B. Vohra , reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 , the Supreme Court, while examining the broad principles governing the scope of judicial review by the constitutional courts, has observed that the court in exercise of its power of judicial review would zealously guard the human rights, fundamental rights and the citizen’s right of life and liberty. In our view, the applicants/ private respondents in this case were entitled to all such benefits, which were extended at least to the 24 other similarly situated casual labourers from the State of Arunachal Pradesh who were junior to them including payment of daily wages for the corresponding period by treating them as casual labourers under the BSNL instead of the contractor, on and from 20/07/2007. By denying such benefits to the applicants without any just reason, the BSNL authorities have acted in violation of the basic human rights as well as the fundamental rights of the applicants. We are, therefore, of the considered view that if the judgement and order of the learned CAT under challenge is implemented in its letter and spirit, the applicants/private respondents would get their just dues under the law. We, therefore, affirm the impugned judgement and order dated 04/08/2023. 30. It is, accordingly, directed that all consequential benefits including payment of arrear of back wages shall be paid by the writ petitioners to each of the applicants/ private respondents by treating them to be in the service of the BSNL as casual labourers with effect from 20/07/2007, within 2 (two) months from today, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum, to be calculated from the date on which the amount had become due till realization. 31. For the above reasons, we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned judgement and order dated 04/08/2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 205/2009. We, however, make it clear that while implementing the order of this Court, the BSNL authorities will ensure that no injury is caused to the interest of any of those casual labourers, who are not party(s) to this proceeding and whose service have already been regularized. In other words, any benefit already conferred upon those casual labourers shall not be disturbed so as to accommodate the claims of the private respondents/applicants in terms of our order. 32. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Parties to bear their own costs.