Casual Workers Not Appointed Against Valid Sanctioned Post, Can't Be Regularized: Calcutta High Court

Background Facts

The appellant was appointed as casual driver on the basis of no work no pay at a fixed remuneration with effect from November 1, 1988 in Baidyabati Municipality. Later on he was granted a particular scale of pay together with increment and other incidental benefits as applicable to the employees of municipal bodies. He continued to fetch such benefits as well as scale of pay until March, 2010. On the basis of certain objections raised by audit authorities, the increment and other benefits of the employee were stopped.

Being aggrieved by such action, the employee approached Baidyabati Municipality seeking redressal of his grievances. However, no steps were taken by the municipality.

The employee approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The court passed an order whereby the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal, was directed to look into the representation of the employee.

In pursuance of such direction, the Director of Local Bodies refused the claim of the employee for regularization, observing that the employee was a casual worker engaged by the municipality, however, such appointment was not sanctioned by the government. The status of the employee remained as a casual worker and absorption of casual workers were not being considered by the directorate.

Being dissatisfied with the findings of the director, the employee challenged it in another writ petition. The petition was dismissed by single judge bench, upholding the findings of the director.

Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed an appeal against the single judge order.

It was argued by the employee that since he was appointed in the year 1987/1988 and was drawing salary under a particular scale of pay together with usual increment and allowances provided to the employees of municipality, his services were liable to be regularized. And he was entitled to be absorbed in the regular cadre. It was also contended that several other employees who were appointed prior to 1992 were absorbed in the regular cadre and their services were regularized.

On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of respondents that the employee was initially appointed on no work no pay basis which was subsequently converted into casual appointment. He was never appointed against a sanctioned post and that too, without following the proper rules for the recruitment. So, the employee is not entitled for regularization of his services.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the appointment of employee has not been proved to be against the regular post. The deemed approval of the appointment has specifically been negated by the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal. The case of The Baidyabati Municipality & Ors. vs. Swapan Chatterjee & Anr. was relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court found the appointment of employee to be in a regular post and such appointment was covered under the scope of deemed approval by the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal.

It was observed by the court that since the employee was never appointed against a sanctioned post and that too without following the formalities, he was not entitled for regularization or absorption.

In case of State of West Bengal vs. Tapas Chakraborty, petitioners were initially appointed on casual basis but later on, their services were confirmed against sanctioned posts. They had to be appointed on an emergency basis. It was mentioned by Municipality that such appointment was made against regular sanctioned posts and following the Recruitment Rules applicable for the municipal employee, so the appointments were held to be valid.

The case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors. was also relied upon by the court wherein the Supreme Court rejected the blanket regularization claims by restricting the regularization of temporary or casual employees.

Hence it was observed by the court that employee was never appointed against a vacant sanctioned post. No prior approval was obtained for such appointment. Further, later on approval was also denied by the competent authority.

It was held by the court that employee was not appointed in a sanctioned post following the rules governing recruitment. Therefore the single judge order was upheld by the court. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal was dismissed by the court.

Case No. : MAT No. 552 of 2022

Counsel for the Appellant : Debajyoti Basu, Supratim Dhar, D. Das, Tirupati Mukherjee, Advs.

Counsel for the Respondents : Pinaki Dhole, Ananya Neogi, Partha Sarathi Debbarman, Kumaresh Dalal, Advs.