Calcutta HC Mandates Regularization for 10+ Year Contractual Staff Appointed Before Rules/Posts Existed, Cites Articles 14 & 23 - 2025-06-20

Calcutta High Court Orders Regularization for Long-Serving Contractual Staff of WB Minorities Corporation

Kolkata , West Bengal – June 13, 2025 – The Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling, has directed the State of West Bengal and the West Bengal Minorities Development and Finance Corporation (WBMDFC) to regularize the services of twelve contractual employees who have served for over a decade. Justice Rai Chattopadhyay , presiding over the case, held that denying regularization to these employees, who were appointed before the formulation of recruitment rules or the sanctioning of posts, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and amounted to exploitation.

The judgment, delivered on June 13, 2025, allows a batch of twelve writ petitions, with Anjum Ara vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 9636 of 2019) as the lead case. The Court set aside departmental orders and notifications that hindered their regularization and quashed a 2019 recruitment notification intended to fill these posts with new recruits.

Case Background: A Decade of Contractual Service

The petitioners were appointed on a contractual basis starting September 24, 2002, to carry out the core functions of the WBMDFC, which was established in 1995. At the time of their initial engagement, the Corporation had no formal recruitment rules or sanctioned posts for subordinate staff. These rules, "The West Bengal Minorities Development and Finance Corporation (Condition of Appointment of Officers and Other Employees) Regulation, 2015," only came into effect in February 2016.

The central legal question was whether these employees, having rendered continuous service for over ten years in indispensable roles, were entitled to regularization, especially when their initial appointments predated the existence of formal recruitment procedures and sanctioned posts.

Arguments Presented

Petitioners' Contentions: Led by Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya and Mr. Samim Ahmed, the petitioners argued: * They were appointed through open advertisements when no recruitment rules existed. * Their service had been continuous and uninterrupted since 2002, performing duties essential and perennial to the Corporation's objectives. * The Corporation itself had previously acknowledged the need for their regularization, and some similarly situated employees, including juniors, were regularized in 2007. * Non-regularization amounted to discrimination, violating Article 14 of the Constitution, and exploitation, violating Articles 14 and 23. * They were denied equal pay and treatment compared to permanent employees despite performing similar work.

Respondents' Stance: Mr. Jahar lal Dey, representing the State, contended: * The petitioners' prayer for regularization had already been rejected in 2015. * Relying on Secretary of Karnataka vs Uma Devi (2006) , regularization should be a one-time measure, which was already undertaken in 2007 for 15 employees. * The petitioners' initial appointments were "illegal" as they were not made according to any rules (which, notably, did not exist then for these posts). * The petitioners were aware of the temporary nature of their engagement.

Court's Analysis: Upholding Fairness and Condemning Arbitrariness

Justice Rai Chattopadhyay meticulously analyzed the facts and legal precedents, making several key observations:

1. Nature of Work and Indispensability: The Court found that the duties performed by the petitioners were "perennial rather than sporadic or project-based" and core to the Corporation's statutory functions. > "The Corporation basically would not have any existence without the functions in which the petitioners take part, as its creation is for the object to carry out those functions only." (Para 17)

2. Applicability of Uma Devi Doctrine: The Court distinguished the present case from the general principles laid down in Uma Devi . It noted that the petitioners were appointed when no sanctioned posts or recruitment rules existed for the Corporation. > "Therefore, the distinction made between the ‘irregular’ and ‘illegal’ appointments, as enumerated in Uma Devi ’s case (supra), would not be applicable in the factual background of this case." (Para 23) The Court reasoned that their appointments could not be termed 'illegal' or 'back-door entries' in the conventional sense, as there were no 'front doors' (i.e., sanctioned posts or rules) at the time of their induction for such roles.

3. Arbitrariness and Discrimination: The Court slammed the respondents' actions as arbitrary and discriminatory, particularly the decision to exclude the petitioners from the 2007 regularization and the subsequent refusal, despite the Corporation's own earlier recommendations for their regularization. > "This is a glaring manifestation of sheer arbitrariness having been exercised and an arbitrary action is not meant to be sustained in the eye of law. To discriminate the similarly situated persons without any justifiable reasons is also forbidden under the law." (Para 27)

4. Exploitation and State as a Model Employer: Drawing upon recent Supreme Court judgments like Jaggo vs Union of India (2024) and Shripal vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025) , the High Court emphasized that prolonged temporary engagement for perennial work constitutes exploitation and contravenes the State's responsibility as a model employer. > "When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations." (Excerpt from Jaggo , cited in Para 20)

5. Rejection of Delay Argument: The Court dismissed the respondents' argument regarding delay in filing the petitions, noting that the 2019 recruitment notification, which directly threatened the petitioners' employment, was challenged promptly.

The Verdict: Regularization Mandated

The High Court allowed all twelve writ petitions and issued the following directives:

1. The impugned office-note dated March 18, 2015, proposing the creation of posts but leading to the denial of regularization, is set aside.

2. The impugned notification dated July 31, 2015, sanctioning 54 posts but restraining the Corporation from regularizing the petitioners, is set aside to that extent.

3. The impugned recruitment notification dated January 18, 2019, is set aside.

4. The respondents (State and Corporation) shall take immediate appropriate measures for the regularization of the writ petitioners.

5. The petitioners shall be regularized in service within three weeks from the communication of the order, with pay fixation.

6. Arrear salaries shall be paid to the petitioners within two months from the date of their regularization order.

7. The respondents are at liberty to publish recruitment notifications for residual vacant sanctioned posts only after issuing regularization orders to the petitioners.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle that long-standing contractual employees, especially those engaged when formal recruitment structures were absent and who perform essential, perennial duties, have a strong claim for regularization. It serves as a significant check on arbitrary state action and underscores the judiciary's role in preventing the exploitation of workers and upholding the tenets of Articles 14 (equality) and 23 (right against exploitation) of the Constitution. The decision emphasizes that the State and its instrumentalities must act as model employers, adhering to principles of fairness and natural justice.