JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeal is in assailment of judgment and order dated March 4, 2022 passed in W.P.A. 29339 of 2014. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant claiming regularization of his service was dismissed.

2. The factual background of the present litigation in a nutshell is that the writ petitioner was appointed temporarily as driver with effect from November 1, 1988 in Baidyabati Municipality. His pay was fixed in regular scales and he has been drawing salaries in terms of such fixation. Suddenly on and from March 2010, the increment and usual allowances payable to the writ petitioner were stopped.

3. Being aggrieved by such action, the writ petitioner approached Baidyabati Municipality seeking redressal of his grievances. However, no steps were taken by the municipality/employer, for which, the writ petitioner approached the High Court by the writ petition being W.P. No. 13380 (W) of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated May 15, 2014 whereby the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal, was directed to look into the representation of the writ petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order.

4. In pursuance of such order, Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal, considered the prayer of the writ petitioner and by a reasoned order dated September 8, 2014, negated the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization of his services as driver. Such reasoned order dated September 8, 2014 has been challenged in the subsequent writ petition being W.P. No. 29339 (W) of 2014 which resulted in the impugned order.

5. At the time of hearing in the writ petition, it was contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that since the pay of the petitioner was fixed in a regular scale by the order of the chairman of the municipality with effect from November 1, 1988, and the petitioner has been drawing salary under such scale, his service was liable to be regularized. It was also argued that in terms of Memoranda dated March 8, 2005, appointments of some of the casual employees working under Baidyabati Municipality were approved by the Hon’ble Governor, West Bengal. Such casual employees were also appointed prior to 1992. Hence, it was submitted that since, the writ petitioner was also appointed prior to 1992, his service ought to have been regularized.

6. In support of his contentions, Learned advocate for the appellant relied upon unreported decisions passed in MAT No. 1651 of 2023 (The Baidyabati Municipality & Ors. vs. Sri Tapan Adhikary & Anr.), MAT No. 65 of 2021 (The Baidyabati Municipality & Ors. vs. Swapan Chatterjee & Anr.), WPA No. 13149 of 2022 (Sri Susanta Samui vs. The Baidyabati Municipality & Ors.), WPA No. 23748 of 2022 (Aloke Dey vs. The Baidyabati Municipality & Ors).

7. Learned advocate for the appellant also relied upon 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 9170 (State of West Bengal vs. Tapas Chakraborty), 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 3633 (State of West Bengal and Anr. vs. Dr. Saktilal Choudhury and Ors.) and 2002 SCC OnLine Cal 112 (Ranaghat Municipal Employees’ Association & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal & Ors).

8. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of respondents that the appellant 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 extant norms prevalent for the recruitment. As such, the appellant is not entitled for regularization of his services. The respondents submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order as well as the reasoned order passed by the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal, dated September 8, 2014. In support of their contention, the respondent placed reliance upon (2008) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1 (Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Ors.).

9. As noted above, by an office order dated October 20, 1987, issued in the pen of Chai