Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Goutam Kumar Jha vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 14 July, 2025
Author: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
Bench: Rajarshi Bharadwaj
2025:CHC-AS:1276
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
(Appellate Side)
Present: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ
W.P.A 719 of 2020
Goutam Kumar Jha ...Petitioner
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. ...Respondents
With
W.P.A 2049 of 2020
Nupur Dutta … Petitioner
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. ... Respondents
With
W.P.A 723 of 2020
Jayanta Mahato ... Petitioner
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. ... Respondents
With
W.P.A 9416 of 2020
Mushtak Shekh ... Petitioner
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. ... Respondents
With
W.P.A 9418 of 2020
Bablu Mohammad ... Petitioner
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. ... Respondents
With
W.P.A 9420 of 2020
Uttam Dhar ... Petitioner
-Vs-
The State of West Bengal & Ors. ... Respondents
- WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -2-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
For the Petitioners : Ms. Susmita Saha Dutta
Mr. Niladri Saha
For the State : Mr. Santanu Kumar Mitra
Mr. Amartya Pal
Mr. Pinaki Dhole
Ms. Ananya Neogi
For the Raiganj Municipality : Mr. Sirsanya Bandopadhyay
Mr. Arka Kumar Nag
Ms. Deboleena Ghosh
Reserved on : 19.05.2025
Pronounced on : 14.07.2025
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J:
1. The present writ petitions, taken up together due to the commonality of
issues involved, are directed against the alleged inaction of the respondent
authorities in regularizing the services of the petitioners, who have been
serving for considerable durations in various capacities under the Raiganj
Municipality herein respondent No.3 and the impugned issuance of a
recruitment notice dated 28.12.2019 for filling Group-D and other posts,
allegedly overlooking the legitimate expectations of the petitioners.
2. For the sake of convenience, W.P.A. 719 of 2020 is treated as the lead
matter, and the facts of that case are referred to wherever necessary. The
issues involved in all the writ petitions being similar, this judgment shall
govern all the connected writ petitions as well.
3. The lead petitioner in WPA 719 of 2020, Shri Goutam Kumar Jha, was
initially engaged as an unskilled labourer under a contract and subsequently
appointed under the Raiganj Municipality on a fixed monthly remuneration of
₹1700/- with effect from 01.03.2006, pursuant to a resolution dated
27.02.2006 of the Board of Councillors.
- WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -3-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
4. Over the years, multiple resolutions and communications emanated
from the Municipality requesting the Director of Local Bodies, Government of
West Bengal, to accord approval for the regularization of the petitioner along
with fifteen others similarly situated. Despite repeated representations from
the petitioners and supportive recommendations from the municipal
authorities, no affirmative decision was forthcoming from the State.
5. Subsequently, the Director of Local Bodies, vide letter dated 06.07.2018,
indicated his consent to initiate recruitment procedure for these employees if
required. Notably, no categorical rejection of the petitioners’ absorption
proposals was communicated to them.
6. In a parallel development, by orders of a Division Bench of this Court in
A.S.T. No. 242 of 2014 (Prasanta Kumar Das & Ors. v. State of West
Bengal & Ors.), directions were issued for the creation of posts and
regularization of similarly circumstanced employees, resulting in the creation
of 13 sanctioned posts under the Raiganj Municipality.
7. Despite this precedent and prolonged engagement of the petitioners in
municipal functions, the respondents issued a fresh recruitment notification
dated 28.12.2019 for multiple posts, including those allegedly held by the
petitioners, without first addressing their claims for regularization.
8. However, by an order dated 21.01.2020, the Hon’ble Justice Amrita
Sinha was pleased to stay the final result of the recruitment process initiated
by the said notice. Till date, no review or appeal has been preferred against the
said order. Neither in the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Raiganj
Municipality nor by the State Respondents has the legality of the said
recruitment notice been affirmed or defended.
9. The petitioners continue to discharge municipal functions and seeks
regularization along with similarly placed employees owing to which the
present petitions have been preferred.
- WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -4-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were initially engaged in municipal service in various Group-D
capacities under Raiganj Municipality on a fixed monthly remuneration,
pursuant to certain resolutions passed by the Board of Councillors. At the
time of their initial engagement, the West Bengal Municipal Employees’
(Recruitment) Rules, 2005 had not come into force and hence there existed
neither sanctioned posts nor any recruitment procedure under the statute.
11. The petitioners continued in an uninterrupted service for over a decade,
during which the Municipality repeatedly requested the Director of Local
Bodies to accord approval for their regularization. At no point has the Director
of Local Bodies directed their disengagement or opposed their continued
service. In fact, the Director’s letter dated 06.07.2018 invited the Municipality
to initiate the process of regularization, if required.
12. The petitioners contended that their appointments were not illegal but
at most “irregular,” made to meet administrative exigencies. There was no
fraud, nepotism or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Their
engagement was supported by official resolutions and their services were
rendered essential throughout, including acknowledgement by successive
Chairmen and administrators.
13. Attention has been drawn to the judgment in Prasanta Kumar Das
(supra), where a Division Bench of this Court directed regularization of
similarly situated employees in Raiganj Municipality. It is submitted that the
facts of the present petitions are on even stronger footing, as the petitioners’
long service and the municipality’s consistent support establish a legitimate
expectation of regularization.
14. Further reliance has been placed on State of Jammu & Kashmir v.
District Bar Association, Bandipora reported in (2017) 9 SCC 410,
Narendra Kumar Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2018) 8 SCC
238 and the recent judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India reported in 2024
– WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -5-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
SCC OnLine SC 3826–all of which underscore the right to regularization in
cases where employees have rendered continuous and indispensable service
over an extended period.
15. The Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the
recruitment notice dated 28.12.2019, which attempts to fill the very posts they
have occupied for over a decade, was stayed by a coordinate Bench of this
Court on 21.01.2020. Moreover, the notice was issued not by the West Bengal
Municipal Service Commission, but by the Chairman of Raiganj Municipality,
in violation of established recruitment protocol. No appeal or review has been
filed against the said stay order till date.
16. In view of the above submissions, it is submitted by the petitioners that
the respondents be directed to regularize the petitioners’ services forthwith in
terms of applicable law and precedents.
17. The Learned Counsel for the State herein respondent no.2 submits that
the petitioners were appointed by the Municipality without obtaining prior
approval of the State Government, in violation of Labour Department Order
No. 100-EMP/N/17/79 dated 13.03.1996 and the Director of Local Bodies’
Order No. 292/DLB/C-33G-2/92(119) dated 22.10.1997, both of which
prohibit engagement of casual workers without such approval.
It is further submitted that although the Municipality, by resolution dated
10.04.2017, resolved to seek Government approval and later sent a proposal
for absorption of 16 candidates, no approval was obtained prior to the
petitioners’ appointment. The appointment was made without any proper
selection process and is, therefore, irregular and illegal.
The State further submits that directions were issued to the Municipality to
initiate a proper recruitment process, initially by letter dated 06.07.2018 and
later through directives dated 18.11.2019, extending the timeline up to
31.05.2020. However, there was no subsequent communication from the
Municipality regarding compliance.
It is also submitted that the Government created 13 posts for absorption of
long-serving casual workers who had been engaged since 1993, pursuant to a
court direction in Prasanta Kumar Das (Supra), the petitioner, having been
appointed only in 2006 on a fixed-pay and contractual basis, does not fall
– WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -6-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
within the scope of that order. The State denies any obligation to regularise
such irregular appointments and prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
18. The Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 5 submits that the
writ petitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts and are based
upon misconceived and presumptive notions that the respondent authorities
have deliberately denied the petitioners absorption into the sanctioned post. It
is contended that the petitioners were initially engaged as unskilled labourer
under a contract and subsequently, vide memo dated 28.02.2006, was
engaged by the Municipality on a fixed remuneration on an ad hoc basis,
without any sanctioned post or governmental approval.
19. It is submitted that the engagement was neither sanctioned nor
approved by the Directorate of Local Bodies and as such, no right accrues to
the petitioners for regularization or absorption under any sanctioned post. The
Municipality has no independent authority to create or regularize posts and
only the Directorate of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal, i.e.,
Respondent No. 2, has the power to regularize casual workers.
20. The respondent further denied that the petitioners had any locus standi
to file the instant writ petitions, as they had not participated in the
recruitment process initiated through notice dated 28.12.2019. The
respondents called upon the petitioners to disclose their educational
qualifications on affidavit to demonstrate whether they possess the minimum
eligibility criteria required under the rules for any of the posts advertised.
21. It is further submitted that even though the Municipality had
communicated with the Directorate of Local Bodies on several occasions
regarding the petitioners’ services, no approval for regularization was granted
by the said authority, and in fact, no direction was ever issued to the
Municipality to absorb or regularize the petitioners or similarly situated
persons.
- WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -7-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
22. The respondents specifically denied the petitioners’ assertion that the
Directorate’s communication dated 06.07.2018 conveyed any consent for
regularization. It is submitted that the petitioners’ interpretation of the said
letter is erroneous and unsustainable.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent Municipality also argued that the
notice dated 28.12.2019 for fresh recruitment was validly issued after
obtaining approval from the Directorate of Local Bodies and that there exists
no illegality in the said recruitment process warranting judicial interference.
The respondent further submitted that no candidate, including the petitioners,
were barred from participating in the said process if otherwise eligible and the
fact that the petitioner did not apply or participate reflects the absence of
merit in their claims.
24. The respondent Municipality expressed its concern that the writ
petitions are being used as a pressure tactic to hold the recruitment process
and the administrative machinery to ransom, under the pretext of service
regularization. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitions have not been filed
in bona fide exercise of legal rights and that the balance of convenience does
not favour the petitioners. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed
with exemplary costs, and the pending recruitment process should be allowed
to proceed unhindered in the interest of administrative exigency and fairness
to all eligible candidates.
25. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the
records this Court is of the view that the core issue in the writ petitions is
whether the petitioners, who have rendered over decades of continuous,
uninterrupted service in Raiganj Municipality against vacant and necessary
posts, albeit without formal regularization, are entitled to be absorbed into
service on a regular basis, especially in light of their long-standing
engagement, institutional recommendations and judicial precedents on
regularization of casual employees.
- WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -8-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
26. This Court notes that the petitioners were engaged not in a clandestine
or illegal manner but pursuant to a formal resolution of the Board of
Councillors of the Municipality. Their appointments were made in response to
acute administrative exigency and a shortage of municipal staff. At the
relevant time, i.e. prior to 12.09.2006, the West Bengal Municipal Employees’
(Recruitment) Rules, 2005 had not yet come into force. Therefore, there were
no codified service rules or prescribed procedure for appointment to municipal
posts.
27. The distinction between illegal and irregular appointments, as laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi reported
in (2006) 4 SCC 1, is crucial. The Court emphasized that while appointments
made in violation of constitutional mandates i.e., without sanctioned posts or
due process are illegal and not eligible for regularization, appointments made
irregularly such as without prior approval but against vacant posts and under
bona fide exigencies which may be regularized based on long, uninterrupted
service.
28. In the present case, the appointments were not contrary to any
prevailing service rules as no such rules existed at that time and were made
transparently by the statutory authority. Thus, the petitioners’ appointments,
at best, may be termed irregular but not illegal.
29. This Court finds compelling parallels with the Division Bench decision
in Prasanta Kumar Das (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Court directed the
creation of sanctioned posts and regularization of similarly placed workers in
Raiganj Municipality who had been appointed under similar circumstances. It
was held therein that in the absence of recruitment rules at the time of initial
engagement and in view of long-standing service under official sanction, the
engagement could not be termed illegal. The said judgment has not been
overturned and has been implemented by the creation of 13 sanctioned posts
and the subsequent regularization of those petitioners.
- WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -9-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
30. The petitioners’ legitimate expectation is also reinforced by consistent
actions and communications issued by the Municipality perse from 2017 to
2019 requesting the Director of Local Bodies to approve their regularization.
At no point was any adverse order passed by the State Government or the
Director against the petitioners’ continuation. The Director’s letter dated
06.07.2018 even advised initiation of the process, if needed, for regularization.
31. The recruitment notice dated 28.12.2019, which seeks to fill the said
posts occupied by the petitioners, has been stayed by this Court vide order
dated 21.01.2020 and no appeal or review has been preferred against such
interim order. Further, the said notice was issued by the Chairman of the
Municipality in violation of the settled law that recruitment to municipal posts
is to be conducted only by the West Bengal Municipal Service Commission.
32. Reliance is also placed on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Jaggo v. Union of India (supra) where the Apex Court held that
sustained and essential service over long periods by workers, even if initially
engaged without a formal process, cannot be brushed aside. Such workers are
entitled to regularization and their roles cannot be dismissed as irregular or
insignificant. The Hon’ble Court reaffirmed the humanitarian and
constitutional need to distinguish genuine long-serving employees from
backdoor entrants.
33. Additionally, the Courts in Narendra Kumar Tiwari (supra) cautions
against the exploitative practice of indefinitely continuing irregular
appointments and then terminating them on technical grounds. The Court
therein affirmed that where appointments were made in the interest of
administration, their long-standing nature transforms the employment into a
legitimate service claim.
34. It is also relevant to note that there is no evidence or pleading by the
respondents suggesting the petitioners were ever disengaged, faced
departmental action or performed their duties in a manner unsatisfactory.
- WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of 2020, -10-
WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020,
WPA 9418 of 2020 & WPA 9420 of 2020 - -
2025:CHC-AS:1276
Their continuous retention and reliance by the Municipality only confirm the
need for and the merit in their services.
35. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioners’ appointments were not illegal,
but at most procedurally irregular, having been made at a time when no
formal recruitment framework was in place. Their long and uninterrupted
service spanning nearly two decades in performing essential municipal
functions, combined with the repeated recommendations and affirmations by
the competent municipal authorities, clearly establishes a case of legitimate
expectation for regularization. The constitutional goal of fairness in public
employment, as embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution, mandates that
such employees cannot be arbitrarily casted away without due consideration
of their bona fide contributions. The doctrine of equality, read in conjunction
with the judicially recognized distinction between “illegal” and “irregular”
appointments, fully supports the regularization of the petitioners in the
present factual context, as has already been directed in similarly placed
matters by coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, this Court
holds that the petitioners’ employment is to be regularized with immediate
effect.
36. Accordingly, the writ petitions being WPA 719 of 2020, WPA 2049 of
2020, WPA 723 of 2020, WPA 9416 of 2020, WPA 9418 of 2020 and WPA 9420
of 2020 are allowed.
37. All pending applications are accordingly disposed of.
38. There shall be no order as to costs.
39. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon fulfilment of requisite formalities.
(RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, J)