Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition seeking regularisation of service post-retirement and claim to entitlement to pension and other retiral dues, a single-judge bench comprising of Kausik Chanda,* J., rejected the petitioner’s plea for regularisation of service post-retirement, emphasising the absence of a sanctioned post for the petitioner’s appointment. The Court also dismissed claims of discrimination and highlighted the negative stance of previous judgments on the regularisation of ad-hoc and illegal appointments.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner retired in 2022 as a Laboratory Attendant in the Geology Department at Trivenidevi Bhalotia College. The petitioner was initially appointed as a part-time Laboratory Attendant in 1983 and later as a full-time Laboratory Attendant in 1984. Two other employees were also given full-time appointments in different departments at the same time. The College, by an order dated 28-03-2022, rejected the petitioner’s request for regularisation. The petitioner seeks regularisation of his service post-retirement, claiming entitlement to pension and other retiral dues.
Moot Point
-
Whether the petitioner’s service, termed as “irregular appointment,” is eligible for post-retirement regularisation?
-
Whether the denial of regularisation to the petitioner, while others were regularised, amounts to discrimination?
-
Whether the petitioner’s appointment was against a sanctioned post?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that his service should be regularised as he possessed the required qualifications and served for over ten years against a sanctioned post. The petitioner relied on the judgments in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Jharkhand v. Kamal Prasad, (2014) 7 SCC 223 to support the post-retirement regularisation claim.
On the other hand, the respondent college argued that the petitioner’s appointment was irregular and not against a sanctioned post, making regularisation impermissible. The respondent cited several precedents, including Mohd. Ashif v. State of Bihar, (2010) 5 SCC 475, Subedar Singh v. Distt. Judge, Mirzapur, (2001) 1 SCC 37, and Vibhuti Shankar Pandey v. . State of M.P., (2023) 3 SCC 639, to argue against the regularisation of ad-hoc and illegal appointments.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner’s service, being irregular and against an unsanctioned post, cannot be regularised post-retirement.
The Court stated that the judgment referred as precedents is establishing a negative stance on the regularisation of ad-hoc, illegal appointments and rejected the petitioner’s claim of negative equality based on the regularisation of other employees in similar situations.
[Tarak Bhattacharya v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 201, order dated 08-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Kausik Chanda
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu), Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Sharanya Chatterjee, Mr. Ayaskanta Ghosh, Counsel for the Respondent 3, 4 and 5
