The court allowed a writ petition as it set aside an Administrative Tribunal order that regularized contractual employees. The court held that eligibility requires 10 years of service and that the applicants failed to meet both criteria.
The impugned order of the Administrative Tribunal dated April 12, 2012 was set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
04.09.2023 Item No.16 Ct. No.5 CHC
WP.ST 20 of 2014
The State of West Bengal & ors. Vs.
Smt. Rumki Bhaumik & ors.
Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate & A.G.P. Mr. Pinaki Dhole,
Mr. Somnath Naskar
…for the State-writ petitioner
We directed service of notice of the writ petition upon the private respondents by an order dated August 2, 2023. We extended the time to comply on August 29, 2023. We are informed that the private respondents were served with the notices.
Affidavit-of-service was filed.
The writ petition is directed against an order dated April 12, 2012 passed by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in O.A.109 of 2011.
By the impugned order, the Tribunal, directed the State to regularize the service of the respondent nos.1 and 2.
Learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioners/State submits that, the respondent nos.1 and 2 were engaged on contractual basis as Pharmacist for the period from October 2002 till November 30, 2005. The respondent nos.1 and 2 did not approach the Tribunal at the relevant point of
2
time. He subsequently filed the Original Application in 2011 and obtained the impugned order.
Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ petitioners/State submits that, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis of the ratio enunciated in (2006) 4 SCC 1 [Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and ors.] . He submits that, in Umadevi (3) Supreme Court observed that, there must be 10 years of contractual service, amongst other criteria to be fulfilled, as on April 10, 2006 for consideration in a scheme for regularisation. Moreover, the initial appointment must be regular and not illegal. The appointment must be towards a sanctioned post. He submits that all criteria laid down in Umadevi (3) were not satisfied. Respondent nos.1 and 2 worked for a period from October 2002 till November 30, 2005. They did not put in 10 years of service. Therefore, the ratio of Umadevi (3) was incorrectly applied.
None appears for the respondents.
Respondent nos.1 and 2 as contractual employees sought regularisation of service before Tribunal which was allowed by the impugned order. The respondents worked as a Pharmacist from October 2002 till November 30, 2005. They waited till 2011 to approach the Tribunal. On that ground alone, the respondent nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to any
3
relief. Be that as it may, the Tribunal, noted the ratio laid down in Umadevi (3) and proceeded to hold that respondent nos.1 and 2 were covered therein. With respect, the Tribunal overlooked the fact that, there must be 10 years of tenure of service for a contractual employee to be considered for a scheme for regularization. The respondent nos.1 and 2 herein did not meet such criteria.
In such circumstances, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated April 12, 2012.
W.P.S.T.20 of 2014 is allowed without any
order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
(Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contractual employees with less than 10 years of service are eligible for regularization under the Umadevi scheme.
Whether delay in approaching the Tribunal precludes entitlement to regularization.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of West Bengal & ors.
Smt. Rumki Bhaumik & ors.
Debangsu Basak
Md. Shabbar Rashidi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
