Long-service employees in sanctioned roles are entitled to regularization despite initial irregular agreements, reinforcing the need for adherence to constitutional hiring principles.

JUDGMENT : 

PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.

1. The petitioner and the Department of Panchayats are embroiled in protracted litigation concerning the regularization of the petitioner's appointment to the post of Gram Panchayat Karmee in Sahapur-II Gram Panchayat (for short, the Gram Panchayat), under Goalpukur-II Development Block, District – Uttar Dinajpur.

2. The genesis of the dispute, which has culminated in the present long-drawn litigation, dates back to 17.09.2007, when the petitioner was engaged as a Gram Panchayat Karmee in Sahapur-II Gram Panchayat pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Gram Panchayat on 06.11.2006. Since then, the petitioner has been continuously discharging his duties and rendering services.

3. In this fifth round of litigation, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regularization of his appointment to the post and for the release of all consequential service-related benefits in his favour.

4. To trace the background leading to the present writ petition, it appears from the records that, in the first round of litigation, the issue was remitted to the District Panchayat & Rural Development Officer by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 20.09.2013 passed in W.P. No. 15264(W) of 2013.

5. In the third round of litigation, the matter was referred to the Commissioner, Department of Panchayats & Rural Development, who, by an order dated 04.09.2019, observed that the petitioner had been appointed by the Pradhan without prior approval of the Government. Noting that he was not the appropriate authority to decide the issue, the Commissioner referred the matter to the Joint Secretary of the Department for further consideration.

6. In the fourth round of litigation, the matter was once again referred to the concerned respondent. By this time, the Special Secretary, in an order dated 09.03.2021, noted that the petitioner had been engaged against a sanctioned post. However, he expressed his inability to extend the benefits under Finance Department Memo No. 9008-F(P) dated 16.09.2011, which provides for regularization of casual workers appointed before 01.04.2010 who have completed 20 years of service with at least 240 days rendered each year, citing that he lacked authority to grant such benefits.

7. The litigation and its complexity were exacerbated by the respondents taking contradictory stands on the issue of whether the petitioner was engaged against a sanctioned post. The Pradhan, in his communication dated 11th November 2011, inserting a table therein, clarified that the petitioner had been engaged against a sanctioned post. Similarly, the Block Development Officer, Goalpokher-II Development Block, in his communication dated 12th February 2024 addressed to the District Panchayat & Rural Development Officer, also confirmed that the petitioner was engaged against a sanctioned post.

8. However, subsequently, the Special Secretary, in an order communicated to the petitioner under memo dated 9th March 2021, observed that “apparently it is observed from the available documents that the petitioner was engaged against a sanctioned post.” Nevertheless, he ultimately concluded that he was not the competent authority to grant the petitioner's prayer for financial and other service-related benefits, and accordingly, referred the matter to the Finance Department for a final decision.

9. Subsequently, in a communication dated 7th October 2021 addressed to the Additional District Magistrate (Panchayat), Uttar Dinajpur, the Special Secretary stated that the petitioner had neither been engaged against a sanctioned post nor had any sanction or approval been issued by the Block Development Office