As per case facts, petitioners, wards of deceased North Bengal State Transport Corporation (NBSTC) employees, sought compassionate appointments. They were engaged on a contractual basis as drivers and conductors following ...
Form No.J(2)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present :
The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
WPA 18203 of 2015
Sudip Adhikari & Ors.
v.
North Bengal State Transport Corporation & Ors.
With
WPA 19215 of 2015
Basudeb Hazra & Ors.
v.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 19367 of 2015
With
IA No. CAN 3 of 2024
Subhash Ghosh & Ors.
v.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 28597 of 2015
Sanat Guha & Ors.
v.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
With
WPA 4419 of 2014
Joy Gopal Saha & Ors.
v.
North Bengal State Transport
Corporation & Ors.
2
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
With
WPA 4420 of 2014
Proditpa Ghosh & Ors.
v.
North Bengal State Transport
Corporation & Ors.
For the petitioner in all matters : Mr. Kamalesh Bhattacharya
Mr. Rezaul Hossain
Mr. Anirban Saha
Mr. Parvez Hossain
For the State in all matters : Mr. Amal Kr. Sen, Ld. AAG
For the State in
WPA 18203 (w) of 2015 : Mrs. Tapati Samanta
For the NBSTC in all matters : Mr. Srijan Nayak
Ms. Rituparna Maitra
Heard on : 20.03.2026.
Judgment on : 22
nd June, 2026.
Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:
1. The questions involved in the above writ petitions are all similar.
These writ petitions are pending for more than a decade and have
been filed between the years 2014 and 2015. Records would
reveal that there is an interim order subsisting. In the writ
petitions, the petitioners have claimed for a declaration that the
petitioners being the wards of the deceased employees of the
North Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short, the “NBSTC”)
having fulfilled the criteria for appointment under died-in-harness
scheme, the respondents are legally obliged to approve the
3
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
appointments of the petitioners against the respective contractual
engagement and to regularize their service in the regular
establishment. The petitioners, independent of such prayer have
also sought for regularization of the services.
2. The above writ petitions have been assigned for hearing before
this Court and have been accordingly taken up for consideration.
Since the petitions raise a common issue, all the petitions are
taken up for consideration together.
3. The petitioners claim to be wards/legal heirs of the deceased
employees who were in the employment of the NBSTC.
4. According to the petitioners, their predecessor having died
untimely death, the petitioners had applied for appointment on
compassionate ground. Following the above, the Managing
Director of the NBSTC by individual communications had called
upon the petitioners to appear for interview along with necessary
certificates/testimonials and valid conductor’s licence, in original,
in support of their qualification, at the time of interview. The
petitioners having participated in such process by an order dated
10
th December, 2008, the petitioners were appointed on
contractual basis for one year from the date of joining on a
consolidated remuneration of Rs. 4,000/- subject to the terms
and conditions as appearing in such memorandum. Similar
appointment orders were also issued in respect of some of the
4
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
other petitioners on 17
th
February, 2009, 19
th
August, 2009 and
on 1
st September, 2009. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the petitioners
had joined the services.
5. Records would reveal that the contractual appointment of the
petitioners effected vide office order dated 10
th December, 2008,
and then subsequently by an order dated 23
rd December, 2009,
stood extended for another term of one year. According to the
petitioners, the extension had been granted from time to time
until the year 2015. It is also the petitioners’ case that in identical
set of facts, WP 4419(w) of 2014 moved by similarly
circumstanced workers had travelled up to the Division Bench
whereupon the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 7
th
August, 2014 had directed the Transport Secretary to formulate
the scheme for regularization of the petitioners in such case
against the existing vacant posts, if necessary, in a phased
manner. When the matter was moved, a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court considering the peculiar facts by an order dated 11
th
July,
2016 had granted an interim order to the effect that the services
of the petitioners shall not be disturbed till disposal of the writ
petition. The petitioners are still continuing in services. From time
to time, the pay package of the petitioners has been enhanced
and presently the petitioners are being paid Rs. 13,500/-, as
consolidated remuneration.
5
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
6. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned advocate representing the petitioners
has highlighted by drawing attention of this Court to the affidavit-
in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 that a decision
had been taken by the Government on 11
th
May, 2007 in a
meeting held in office of the Additional Chief Secretary, Transport
Department, Government of West Bengal with the Managing
Director of CTC, CSTC, NBSTC, the Joint Secretary and Assistant
Secretary, Transport Department, on the issue of appointment on
compassionate ground in died-in-harness category. According to
the statements made in the affidavit, it was decided in such
meeting that since the applicants are suffering a lot for a long
time for getting the desired relief, and considering the plight and
the harassment, the decision of temporary engagement for those
candidates in operational vacancies of drivers, conductor etc. as
available was taken on the condition of they being found
otherwise eligible. It has been thus, decided to engage them on
contractual basis. According to such affidavit, a selection
committee was put in place who had prepared a roster strictly on
the basis of seniority in accordance with the date of death and in
course thereof several persons were called for interview on 20
th
October, 2008 and 21
st
October, 2008. The committee during the
course of interview rigidly assessed the financial condition of the
candidates, age at the time of interview, aptitude etc. The
6
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
committee after careful consideration, had prepared a panel duly
signed by all members of the committee which was displayed on
the notice board for the qualifying and disqualifying candidates.
Accordingly, all those candidates who qualified got contractual
employment purely on temporary basis on the condition of yearly
renewal. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, since the petitioners
were engaged on the basis of a selection process conducted by the
authorities, the appointment of the petitioners cannot be said to
be irregular. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the
Judgment delivered in the case of Jaggo v. Union of India &
Ors., neutral citation 2024 INSC 1034, to inter alia, contend that
the respondents cannot be permitted to utilize the services of the
petitioners on temporary basis so as to deprive them of their
legitimate right to be entitled to the minimum salary that is
available to a regular employee. The employees who are
discharging their duties as drivers and conductors are also
entitled to equal pay for equal work.
7. Mr. Sen, learned Additional Advocate General representing the
State on the other hand has submitted that the employment of
the petitioners is purely contractual. It is his contention that in
the instant case, no Scheme had been framed by the State
Government and/or the respondents for providing employment to
the wards of the deceased employees on compassionate ground.
7
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
Independent of the above, by drawing attention to the offer of
appointment, it is submitted that the appointments are all
contractual. Since the appointments are contractual and have not
been made in accordance with the selection process, the
petitioners do not have any right to seeks regularization.
8. This Hon’ble Court in the given facts ought not to allow the prayer
for regularization since the appointment is not in respect of any
sanctioned post. According to him, it is the prerogative of the
employer either to fill up or not to fill up a particular post. For
this Court to allow a prayer for regularization, the initial entry
into service has to be against a sanctioned post. It is immaterial
whether any subsequent vacancies arise, the same cannot adhere
to the benefits of the petitioners. In support of his aforesaid
contention, he has relied on the Judgment delivered in the case of
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors. , reported in
(2011) 2 SCC 429. According to him, for the Court to consider
grant of relief on the ground of equal pay for equal work, diverse
factors require consideration. In his view, the same is only
possible through a specialized body. In support of his aforesaid
contention, reliance has been placed on the Judgment delivered
in the case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers
Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. , reported in (2019) 18
SCC 301. Mr. Sen has also relied on the Judgment delivered in
8
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. ,
reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 for the proposition that in absence
of any scheme, the Court cannot allow the prayer for
compassionate appointment.
9. Mr. Nayak, learned advocate appears on behalf of the NBSTC.
According to him, the petitioners have no legal right to seek
regularization. Under the peculiar facts noted in the affidavit filed
by the State, the petitioners had been appointed. The petitioners
were well aware that the appointment is contractual. If, the
petitioners have chosen to accept the contractual appointment,
the respondents cannot be compelled to regularize the same. By
referring to the report filed on behalf of the NBSTC, he has once
again clarified that no scheme as of now exists for absorbing the
employees.
10. Heard, the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and considered the materials on record. It is an admitted
position that the predecessors of the petitioners had while in
service of NBSTC died untimely death. Since, the petitioners had
applied for compassionate appointment, the managing director of
NBSTC by individual communications had called upon the
petitioners to appear for interview along with their certificates,
testimonials and requisite conductor’s licence, for interview. The
petitioners participated in such selection process before a
9
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
selection committee, and subsequently a panel was prepared. The
persons from the panel were called for interview. The names of the
successful candidates were published in the notice board and
thereafter the individual petitioners having become successful in
the appointment process were appointed on contractual basis
against operational vacancy for one year from the date of joining
on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 4,000/- subject to the
terms and conditions as appearing in the memoranda dated 10
th
December, 2008, 17
th February 2009, 19
th August 2009, 1
st
September 2009. As would appear from the aforesaid
memoranda, and on the basis of specific disclosure made by
NBSTC in its report affirmed in the form of an affidavit on 9
th
December 2014, a total of 339 appointments had been made. Out
of the above, 335 appointments have been made for contractual
conductors and 4 as contractual drivers.
11. Records would reveal that the contractual appointment of the
petitioners were effected vide office order dated 10
th
December,
2008, and subsequently by an order dated 23
rd
December, 2009
the same stood extended for another term of one year. According
to the petitioners, the extension had been granted from time to
time until the year 2015. At present, as per the above report of
NBSTC, these contractual employees are receiving a pay package
of Rs.13,500/-. As per their designation, these contractual
10
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
employees are discharging their duties as conductors and drivers,
apart from other duties as per the exigencies.
12. Though the learned Additional Advocate General representing
the State has vehemently contended that in any event, absence of
appointment of these employees in sanctioned posts, their
appointments cannot be regularised, it is not in dispute that the
petitioners are the wards/legal heirs of the deceased employees of
the NBSTC. It is not the case of the NBSTC that the parents or the
spouses of the petitioners who were in service during their
respective lifetimes were not working against sanctioned posts. If,
the petitioners are the wards of employees who had died in
service, it is obvious that the posts held by those employees (now
deceased), which were sanctioned posts, had fallen vacant on the
death of such employees. Consequentially, the appointment of the
petitioners which were against such operational vacancies, cannot
be said to have been made against ad hoc posts, at least no such
disclosure has been made. It is also not in dispute that the
appointment of the petitioners was not made without holding a
selection process. When an organ of the State has chosen to
select candidates and appointed them against the posts of
deceased employees which were originally sanctioned, it cannot
be said that the appointment was illegal though the same, may be
irregular and not strictly in accordance with the service rules. It
11
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
may also be noted that the above selection process had the
concurrence of the State as would appear from the minutes of the
meeting held on 11
th May, 2007 in presence of the Joint-
Secretary, Transport Department, Government of West Bengal. In
this context, I find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jaggo (supra) has quoted a passage from the judgement delivered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Kumar &
Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in [2024] 1 SCR
1230. In the above judgement, it has been observed that in the
case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi &
Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
distinguished between irregular and illegal appointments,
underscoring the importance of considering certain appointments,
even if they were not made strictly in accordance with the
prescribed rules and procedure. Such appointments cannot be
said to be illegally made if they had followed the procedures of
regular appointment, as in the present case. I find that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said case had also noted with
approval that the International Labour Organization (in short, the
“ILO”) of which India is a founding member, has constantly
advocated for employment stability and fair treatment of workers.
The ILO’s Multinational Enterprises Declaration encourages
companies to provide stable employment and to observe
12
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
obligations concerning employment, stability and social
international security. While seeking to explain the judgement
delivered in the case of Umadevi (supra), the Hon’ble Court had
observed that though the same seeks to curtail the practice of
back door entries and ensure appointments adhered to
constitutional principles, it is regrettable that the principles are
misapplied to deny legitimate claim and though in such
judgement, it has been held that employees in irregular
appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and
had served continuously for more than 10 years, should be
considered for regularization as one time measure, however, the
intent of the judgement is being subverted when institutions rely
on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of the employees,
even in cases where appointments were not illegal, but mainly
lack adherence to procedural formalities. It has also been
observed in the above judgement that the Government
department often rely on the judgement of Umadevi (supra) to
argue that no vested right to regularisation exists for the
temporary employees, overlooking the judgement’s explicit
acknowledgement of cases where regularisation is appropriate.
This selective application distorts the judgement’s spirit and
purpose, thereby weaponising it against employees who had
rendered indispensable service for decades. In the above
13
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
judgment, it has also been observed that it is imperative for the
government department to lead by example in providing fair and
stable employment. Employing workers on temporary basis for
extended period, especially when their roles are integral to the
organisation’s function, is not only contravention of international
labour standard, but also exposes the organisation to legal
challenges and undermines employee’s moral.
13. Similarly, in this case, as would appear from the nature of
appointments, the appointments of the petitioners are integral to
the functioning of the NBSTC. It has elaborately been discussed
hereinabove that the appointment of the petitioners was through
a selection process. As such, the appointments cannot be said to
be illegal. They may at best be considered to be irregular. The
respondents are paying a meagre amount of Rs. 13,500/- to the
petitioners towards consolidated remuneration and are thereby
exploiting the petitioners. The workforce of these employees is
about 339. It is true that ordinarily, to equate the nature of work
carried out by one set of employees with another set requires
specialization, however, in the instant case, the fact that the
petitioners discharge their duties as drivers and conductors
requires no rocket science to appreciate that the petitioners are
being exploited at the hands of the State.
14
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
14. The judgment delivered in the case of Dayalal & Ors. (supra)
cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case. In the
said case, certain temporary appointments as Assistant
Superintendents were made in aided hostels in 1985 and 1986. In
1996 the prefix “Assistant” was omitted and thereafter the
concerned respondents were known as Superintendents. The
matter also dealt with temporarily appointed superintendents.
The writ petition was filed contending that the petitioners were
employed on full-time basis and were discharging functions
similar to those of superintendents in government hostels. They
sought for regularization in the post of Hostel Superintendent and
payment of salary at par with Hostel Superintendent of Class C
Hostels of the Social Welfare Department. The State Government
issued an order on 28
th
December, 1998 stopping the practice of
appointing Class IV employees on consolidated wages and to
remove any person appointed on that basis. Later by a circular
dated 21
st
January, 1999, the District Social Welfare Officers were
directed to remove part time chowkidars/cooks employed by the
Department and replace them by ex-servicemen or widows of ex-
servicemen. It is in those facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
paragraph 11 framed two several questions on the issue of
regularisation and thereafter, had made the observations that the
High Court shall not under Article 226 of the Constitution issue
15
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
directions for regularization unless, the employees seeking
regularization have been appointed in pursuance to a regular
employment in accordance with relevant rules, the other
directions would also appear therefrom. Admittedly, the said case
and the present case are different on facts. It is not in dispute
that the appointment of the petitioners was made though on
contractual basis, however, upon a selection committee being
constituted with the concurrence of the State. The appointments
were against operational vacancies, as available. Sanctioned posts
had fallen vacant consequent upon death of the parents and/or
spouses of the petitioners. The above judgment, in my view, is
distinguishable on facts and does not assist the respondents’
case.
15. The next judgment relied on by the Learned Additional
Advocate General was the case of State of Bihar & Ors. (supra).
The said case dealt with parity of pay. In the said case, in 1981 all
non-governmental secondary schools were nationalised and the
management was taken over by the State of Bihar. Consequently,
all teaching and non-teaching staffs were given salaries and
emoluments at the Government scale under various scheme like
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The State Government under the
schemes inducted large number of teachers at Panchayat, Nagar
Panchayat and Municipal levels, but were not given same salaries
16
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
and emoluments like the teachers who were paid at the
Government scales. It is in that context, whether such teachers
were discharging the same set of duties as that of a regular
teacher, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in order to
consider the applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal
work, one of the fundamental aspects to be considered is the
nature of duty. In the said case, the selection of teachers was at
local level, the selection of teachers was not through Bihar Public
Service Commission. Having regard thereto, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in paragraph 96 had observed that the mode of
recruitment/selection may be considered as one of the factors but
the nature of duties performed must be identical, which
evaluation must be left to the expert body. Such is not the case
here. The employees are drivers and conductors. The aforesaid
judgment is distinguishable on facts and does not assist the
respondents, especially when it is not the case of the respondents
that their employees are discharging any lesser duties than the
drivers and conductors.
16. The next judgment relied on by the Learned Additional
Advocate General is the case of State of West Bengal (supra).
The said matter dealt with the issue of compassionate
appointment. Since in the present case the petitioners have
17
WPA 18203 of 2015
WPA 19215 of 2015
WPA 19367 of 2015
WPA 28597 of 2015
WPA 4419 of 2014
WPA 4420 of 2014
already been given appointment, though on contractual basis, the
above judgment does not assist the respondents.
17. In the light of the above, since, it is apparent and clear that the
respondents have been enjoying service of the petitioners and
have been benefited from the service to a large extent, I am of the
view that the respondents cannot be permitted to exploit the
petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to be regularised in
regular appointment, especially when they are discharging duties,
which are integral to the respondents’ functioning, and since their
initial appointment was not illegal, though, the same may be
irregular.
18. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed by directing the
respondents to regularize the petitioners in service from the date
of filling of the writ petition. However, the regularisation from the
date of filling of the writ petition shall only be for the purpose of
computing notional benefits, actual benefits shall be disbursed in
favour of the petitioners from the date of this judgement.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be
made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite
formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
In a significant ruling, the Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury of the High Court at Calcutta has delivered a comprehensive **West Bengal High Court judgment** concerning the **contractual employee regularization** of workers serving the North Bengal State Transport Corporation (NBSTC). This important decision, available on CaseOn, addresses the long-standing grievances of employees seeking permanent positions after years of contractual service on compassionate grounds. The judgment critically examines the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments, asserting that prolonged service in integral roles, even if initially contractual, warrants regularization.
The consolidated writ petitions, pending for over a decade, stemmed from the appointment of wards/legal heirs of deceased NBSTC employees on compassionate grounds. These petitioners, appointed contractually after a selection process, sought a declaration for regularization of their services and commensurate pay.
The petitioners argued that their appointments, though contractual, followed a proper selection process, including interviews and verification of qualifications (such as a valid conductor's license). They were initially appointed in 2008-2009 for one year on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 4,000/-, which was extended multiple times until 2015, and their pay was later enhanced to Rs. 13,500/-. They contended that their appointments were against sanctioned posts left vacant by their deceased predecessors and that they performed duties integral to NBSTC's functioning (as drivers and conductors). They highlighted that the selection process had the concurrence of the State Government, making their appointments irregular at best, not illegal, and that continued exploitation through temporary engagement was unacceptable.
Representing the State and NBSTC, the learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Nayak argued that the petitioners' employment was purely contractual, and no formal scheme for compassionate appointment and subsequent regularization had been framed by the State Government. They contended that regularization could only occur if the initial appointment was against a sanctioned post through a regular employment process, and that the petitioners had no legal right to seek regularization. They also suggested that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' required a specialized body for evaluation of duties and selection processes.
The Court's decision drew upon and distinguished several key judicial pronouncements to arrive at its conclusion.
Central to the petitioners' argument and the Court's analysis was the distinction between an 'irregular' appointment and an 'illegal' appointment. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's pronouncement in *Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1*, which recognized that employees in irregular appointments, if engaged in duly sanctioned posts and serving continuously for more than 10 years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure. The Court noted that the principles of *Umadevi* are often misapplied to deny legitimate claims, overlooking situations where regularization is appropriate despite procedural lapses.
The respondents cited *State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari & Ors. (2025) 5 SCC 712*, arguing that a compassionate appointment requires a formal scheme. However, the Court distinguished this by noting that the petitioners had already been appointed, not merely seeking an initial appointment, rendering this precedent inapplicable.
On the argument of 'equal pay for equal work', the State relied on *State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 301*. The Court, however, found this case distinguishable, stating that the duties of drivers and conductors are self-evident and integral to NBSTC's function, requiring no complex expert evaluation, unlike the teaching roles in the cited case. Moreover, the respondents did not claim that the petitioners performed lesser duties.
For legal professionals and students looking for swift insights into such intricate rulings, CaseOn.in's 2-minute audio briefs provide an invaluable resource, distilling complex judgments into easily digestible formats.
The Hon'ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury meticulously analyzed the facts and legal arguments presented.
The Court observed that the petitioners were indeed wards of deceased NBSTC employees, whose posts were sanctioned and fell vacant upon their death. The appointments, though termed 'contractual' and against 'operational vacancies', were implicitly against these sanctioned posts. Crucially, the appointment process involved a selection committee, interviews, and state concurrence, suggesting it was not an arbitrary 'backdoor entry' but a structured, albeit irregular, process. This careful selection process and the integral nature of their duties (drivers and conductors) underpinned the Court's view that their appointments were irregular, not illegal.
The Court dismissed the State's reliance on *State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Daya Lal & Ors. (2011) 2 SCC 429*, noting factual differences. Unlike the temporary appointments in *Daya Lal*, the petitioners in this case were selected through a process and appointed against posts that had become vacant. The argument that no formal scheme existed for regularization was weighed against the fact that the State itself had concurred in the initial engagement process for compassionate appointees.
A significant aspect of the judgment was its strong reliance on *Jaggo v. Union of India & Ors. (2024 INSC 1034)*, which itself quoted *Vinod Kumar & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. [2024] 1 SCR 1230*. This precedent underscored the importance of employment stability, fair treatment for workers (aligned with ILO principles), and critiqued government departments for employing workers on a temporary basis for extended periods in integral roles, deeming it exploitation and a contravention of international labour standards. The Court noted the petitioners' meager remuneration after years of service as clear evidence of exploitation.
Concluding its analysis, the Court found the respondents' actions exploitative and contrary to the spirit of judicial precedents advocating for fair labor practices.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the respondents to regularize the petitioners' services. This regularization is to be effective from the date of filing of the writ petitions for the purpose of computing notional benefits. However, actual financial benefits, including regular salary and emoluments, are to be disbursed from the date of this judgment. The Court ordered no costs.
This **West Bengal High Court judgment** is a crucial read for legal professionals and students specializing in labor law, constitutional law, and administrative law. It clarifies the nuanced distinction between 'irregular' and 'illegal' appointments, providing a strong precedent for the regularization of long-serving contractual employees, especially those appointed on compassionate grounds through a selection process. The ruling reaffirms the principle against exploitation of workers by state instrumentalities and highlights the judiciary's role in upholding fair labor practices, even in the absence of explicit regularization schemes. It underscores the continued relevance of Supreme Court judgments like *Umadevi* and newer pronouncements like *Jaggo* in advocating for employment stability and equitable treatment.
Disclaimer: All information provided herein is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified legal professional for advice pertaining to their specific circumstances.
Legal Notes
Add a Note....