Right to regularization of service as a Group-D employee affirmed for long-term workers, while denying full back wages due to laches.

JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. K. Dhar, learned Sr. G.A. assisted by Mr. A. De, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

[2] By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to regularize her service in the post under Group-D category for completion of ten years service, with all service benefits including the back wages and seniority with effect from 01.07.2009. The petitioner has asserted that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Cast (SC) Community and she was engaged as the Contract Based Worker (CBW) with effect from June, 1999. In this regard, an informative table formed by the respondents [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] has been relied by the petitioner. From the said table, it can be derived that the petitioner was engaged as CBW. Similarly situated persons namely Arati Debnath and Nikunja Debnath (both CBWs) who were junior to the petitioner had been regularized in the Group-D post under direction from this court and in terms of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008.

[3] Mr. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to a decision of this court reflected in the judgment dated 11.09.2017 passed in a batch of writ petitions being W.P.(C)13 of 2017, W.P.(C)14 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.15 of 2017. In the said judgment, it has been observed as follows:

“All the contingent workers or the casual workers are guided by the service contract. There is thin or negligible distinction or no distinction between the casual workers or the contract based workers. Be that as it may, the respondents have failed to produced any piece of paper to show that the petitioners were engaged under any contract. Even the respondents did not make any endeavour to interpret the words 'casual' and 'contingent' as appearing in the Memorandum dated 01.09.2008. For all purposes and having due regard to the records as produced in the rejoinder, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are full time casual workers working under the respondents and had completed 10 years of service much before 31.03.2008 and as such they are entitled to be regularized under the memorandum dated 01.09.2008. Denial of such benefits to the petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory and is against the Government's own policy. But since the petitioners have approached this Court after a long time from the day when the cause for filing these writ petitions first arose, they will not get the full financial benefit in terms of the memorandum dated 01.09.2008, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. In this context, the respondents are directed to regularize the petitioners w.e.f. 01.07.2008 as the Group D employees within 3(three) months from the day when they would receive a copy of the writ petition.

2) To fix the pay of the petitioners notionally since 01.07.2008 to the day three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. From the day three years prior to the filing of the writ petitions, the petitioners shall be entitled to get the financial benefits and, hence the respondents are directed to pay their arrears of pay and allowances within a period of 3 months from the date when the petitioners shall submit a copy of this order.”

[4] The said decision of this court was challenged by the state by filing the writ appeals. But those writ appeals being WA 59 of 2017, WA 60 of 2017 and WA 61 of 2017 were dismissed by affirming the said decision of the learned Single Judge. The decision as delivered in those writ appeals were also challenged before the apex court but the apex court has refused to interfere with the said j