Employees who have worked for a considerable period of time cannot be denied regularisation, as it would violate their fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) in MAT No. 611 of 2018 and CAN No. 10038/2018 filed by the Appellant herein against the order dated 04.05.2018 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 31399 (W) of 2017, seeking regularisation of service.

3. The High Court dismissed MAT No. 611 of 2018 and CAN No. 10038/2018 filed by the Appellant herein.

BRIEF FACTS:

4. The Appellant in the present case was a casual worker in Respondent No.3-Municipality, since 1991. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 18.04.1991, the Appellant herein was appointed by Respondent No.3- Municipality as a casual worker @ Rs.25/-on a daily wage basis, to assist the Engineering Section of the Municipal Office. Prior to this, he had worked as an enumerator in the Census of 1981 and 1991, respectively. On 14.06.1996, the Appellant was appointed for 6 months on probation on a consolidated pay of Rs.1000/-per month. On 22.01.1997, Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal, issued a letter, wherein it was mentioned that as per order dated 13.03.1996, casual workers who were engaged by different Urban Local Bodies up to 31.12.1991 and were still continuing as such will be eligible for absorption against sanctioned and vacant Group “C” and “D” categories of post depending upon their eligibility within the purview of approved staff pattern of the respective Urban Local Bodies and as per the Board of the Councillors, subject to the fulfilment of terms and conditions. However, such absorption never actually happened.

5. In 1999, the Appellant herein along with 16 other casual workers of Respondent No. 3-Municipality filed Writ Petition No. 19555 (W) of 1999 before the High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 3Municipality herein to regularise and/or absorb in permanent vacancies in which they were discharging their duties as casual workers. On 09.03.2000, an office order was issued by Respondent No.- 3 Municipality stating that in pursuance of his satisfactory performance since last 3 years, he is being appointed in the post of Clerk in the dispatch section in the scale of Rs. 3350-6325/-plus usual admissible allowances with retrospective effect from February, 2000. On 20.06.2000, the High Court dismissed the aforementioned Writ Petition No. 19555 (W) of 1999. The relevant portion of the High Court’s order is being reproduced hereunder :-

“By the order dated 26th September, 1996 passed in C.O. No. 9662(W) of 1991, the respondent municipality was directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners for absorption in the permanent vacancy. Pursuant to the said order, the case of the petitioners were considered and they were ultimately absorbed in permanent vacancies. Prior to such absorption, the petitioners were serving as casual workers. Upon such absorption, the petitioners have been granted the regular scale of pay with effect from the date of their permanent absorption. Such permanent absorption was made considering the service of the writ petitioners as casual workers in the respondent municipality for a considerable period of time and therefore, such permanent absorption in the regular vacancy did not relate to an appointment with a retrospective effect and as such the petitioners are not entitled to such a permanent and/or regular scale upon such absorption with a back date.

This writ petition does not submit any consideration. Hence, the case is dismissed.”

Following this, the Appellant wrote several letters and reminders to the Respondents for considering his eligibility and gradation list for absorption under the exempted category to the sanctioned posts; but to no avail.

6. On 15.12.2003, 60 employees including 4 Writ Petitioners in the aforementioned Writ Petition No. 19555 (W) of 1999, were regularised. However, t