“The laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities.” – HC
In a significant pronouncement addressing the persistent misuse of State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Ors., the Calcutta High Court critically examined the boundaries between irregular and illegal appointments in public employment. The case emerged from the prolonged contractual engagement of Assistant and Sub-Assistant Engineers in sanctioned posts under the National Rural Health Mission, raising the key legal issue: Can contractual employees appointed through due process against sanctioned posts be denied regularization solely on the basis of procedural technicalities? Read on to explore how the Court interpreted the evolving jurisprudence on regularization and the larger implications for employment practices within state-run corporations.
Brief facts:
The case arises from the petitioners’ contractual engagement as Assistant and Sub-Assistant Engineers (Electrical and Civil) by the West Bengal Medical Services Corporation Limited through advertisements, with initial two-year terms and monthly remuneration of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,400/-, respectively. Though required to submit undertakings denying any claim to regular employment, they were appointed against sanctioned posts under the Department of Health & Family Welfare for the National Rural Health Mission and related programs. In 2016, the Corporation, fully owned by the State of West Bengal, proposed phased regularization of contractual employees meeting specific criteria, including two years of service. Despite fulfilling these conditions, the petitioners were not regularized, and their contracts were only extended in 2017 and 2018. After failed representations, they filed the present writ petition seeking regularization and service benefits, claiming the Corporation’s inaction violated their rights and the stated policy.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioners were engaged against sanctioned posts through a proper recruitment process following state government rules, making them eligible for regularization. The Corporation’s Board had resolved to regularize contractual employees in phases, and the petitioners met the criteria, including over two years of continuous service. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Ors. allows regularization of irregular, but not illegal, appointments under certain conditions, which the petitioners satisfy. Thus, the respondent’s reliance on Umadevi is misplaced, especially given later rulings in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors, Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024), and Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, which reject prolonged contractual engagement without regular recruitment. Additionally, the Corporation is financially sound, earning Rs. 18 crores in 2017–18 and Rs. 53.22 crores in 2023–24, weakening any claim of financial constraints.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The petitioners were contractually engaged under the National Rural Health Mission with clear undertakings that their appointments would not lead to regularization. The Corporation, formed under the Companies Act, 1956, operates independently with limited state support and requires Finance Department approval for regularizing services. As the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned vacancies, their regularization proposal was rejected based on the State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Ors. judgment, which prohibits regularizing contractual staff. The Corporation also cited financial incapacity and lack of state policy support, keeping the 2016 regularization plan in abeyance. Despite this, the petitioners receive substantial salaries, Rs. 79,583/- for Assistant Engineers and Rs. 50,792/- for Sub-Assistant Engineers, along with ROPA 2019 benefits, with their tenure extended up to age 60.
Observations of the Court:
A Single Judge Bench, Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee reiterated, while referring to the case Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. , “While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between ‘illegal’ and ‘irregular’ appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a one-time measure.”
“However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment’s explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment’s spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades”, added the Bench.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s appointments, made through a proper recruitment process against sanctioned posts, were not illegal but at best irregular. The Court noted their continuous service of over a decade, performing perennial duties integral to the Corporation’s functioning, tantamount to those performed by regular employees. It referenced the state’s 2005 policy, extended in 2006 to statutory bodies like the Corporation, which supported regularizing contractual employees.
Further, the Court criticized the respondent’s reliance on State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi & Ors., referring to the Supreme Court’s clarification in Jaggo vs. Union of India & Ors. It also relied on Shripal & Anr. vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, which held that “Uma Devi (supra) cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative contractual engagements that continue for years without the employer initiating a legitimate recruitment process.”
The Court rejected the respondent’s claim that the petitioner’s roles were project-based, citing the absence of contemporaneous evidence. It also dismissed the Corporation’s plea of financial constraints, noting its substantial profits. The presence of the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department on the Corporation’s Board, which had itself resolved to initiate regularization, further weakened the respondent’s objections. The Court emphasized a broader systemic issue, observing that government institutions increasingly rely on contractual engagements to circumvent pension and promotional liabilities, a practice inconsistent with established judicial precedents favoring the regularization of long-serving employees appointed against sanctioned posts.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Court directed the respondents to regularize the petitioner’s services in their respective posts and release all consequential benefits, including promotional and retirement benefits, within twelve weeks from the receipt of the order.
Case Title: Sandip Mondal & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No.: WPA 12347 of 2018
Coram: Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
Advocate for Petitioner: Advocates Ekramul Bari and Imtiaj Uddin
Advocate for Respondent: Advocates Nilotpal Chatterjee, Sadhan Kumar Halder, Amitava Chaudhuri, and N. Roy.
Picture Source :
