IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay W.P.A. 19114 of 2019 Gadadhar Rana -Vs-

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sankha Biswas For the State : Ms. Jhuma Chakraborty Mr. Pariksshit Goswami For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Rahul Kumar Saha Heard on : 14.08.2025 Judgment on : 02.12.2025 Uploaded on : 02.12.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the persistent inaction of the respondent authorities in regularizing his service through absorption as Panchayat Karmee in the Panchayat and Rural Development, despite more than two decades of uninterrupted, unblemished and continuous engagement being appointed as casual worker at Mahata Gram Panchayat on and from 1st of November, 1999.

2. Pursuant to a formal joining report submitted in response to a communication issued by the Panchayat on 28.10.1999, a resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 13.12.1999 unanimously approved the appointment of the petitioner as a casual worker, and ever since, his discharge of services was devoid of any allegation or adverse remark.

3. The petitioner asserted his service had been regularized and the remuneration of the petitioner was not enhanced during the course of nearly 20 years of service as notified by the State Government from time to time. Repeated representations by the petitioner to the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Purba Bardhaman, the latest being dated 13.08.2019. All such entreaties remained disregarded and unobserved. The grievance being unaddressed compelled the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The petitioner further referred to various Government notifications ranging on and from 16.09.2011 to 08.02.2019 whereby though the remuneration of the casual workers had been enhanced, the petitioner was not accorded with such benefit of increment. The Assistant Secretary, Government of West Bengal, augmented the remuneration of casual workers who had been enlisted in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 to Rs.16,500/-, Rs.18,000/-

and Rs.19,000/- respectively, barring the petitioner.

5. The petitioner serving as a casual worker continued to receive monthly salary of Rs.7,000/- in non-compliance of the Government notifications without enuring the benefit of supplement as aforesaid. The petitioner was deprived of such gain for the reason to have been permitted to join as Panchayat Karmee on the ground of compassionate appointment on the premise of his father being a regular employee of Mahata Gram Panchayat been declared medically unfit. Secondly, the petitioner had been working for almost two decades as Panchayat Karmee on casual basis. According to the petitioner, his non-regularization and/or non-absorption in service violated his right protected under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submitted the actions and omissions of the respondent authorities particularly of the District Panchayat and Rural Development Officer, Purba Bardhaman were neither supported by facts nor sustainable in law. The petitioner had devoted considerable part of his life in Panchayat service with the legitimate expectation of absorption in the regular establishment. The denial of regularization, despite decades of services and sacrifice is characterized as wholly unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

7. The Learned Advocate representing the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:-

i. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Piara Singh Ors.1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:-

“21. Ordinarily speaking, the creation and abolition of a post is the prerogative of the Executive. It is the Executive again that lays down the conditions of service subject, of course, to a law made by the appropriate legislature. This power to prescribe the conditions of service can be exerc