Long-Term Contractual Work Cannot Be a Tool for Exploitation | Calcutta High Court Orders Regularisation of Minority Corporation Staff After 10+ Years of Service
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court at Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay has stated that the continuous contractual engagement of certain employees by the West Bengal Minorities Development and Finance Corporation without regularisation, despite more than a decade of uninterrupted service, was unjustified. The Court set aside the official orders that had prevented their regularisation and directed the Corporation and the State Government to regularise the petitioners' services within three weeks, also ordering payment of arrears within two months. The Court further invalidated a recruitment notification that excluded the petitioners from regular consideration, describing the Corporation's actions as discriminatory and arbitrary.
Twelve writ petitions were heard jointly, arising from a dispute regarding the employment status of workers engaged by the West Bengal Minorities Development and Finance Corporation. These individuals were appointed on a contractual basis starting from 24 September 2002. The Corporation had been established in 1995 under the West Bengal Minorities Development and Finance Corporation Act, 1995, and initially functioned with only skeletal managerial posts. Subordinate staff, including the petitioners, were appointed on a contractual basis due to the absence of recruitment regulations at that time.
Despite the contractual nature of the appointments, the petitioners worked uninterruptedly for over ten years. They claimed to have performed duties equivalent to permanent staff and stated the Corporation's continuous need for their services. The Corporation’s correspondence, including a letter dated 15 September 2005 to the Joint Secretary, Minorities Development and Welfare Department, reflected the intent to regularise such employees. Fifteen employees were regularised in 2007. Later correspondences in 2008, 2010, and 2012 sought additional posts and further regularisation.
However, an order dated 18 March 2015 identified 137 posts filled in excess of sanctioned strength and refused to regularise the petitioners. This was followed by a departmental order dated 31 July 2015, which sanctioned 54 posts but stipulated that they be filled only under newly framed recruitment regulations and that existing contractual employees be replaced. The West Bengal Minorities Development and Finance Corporation (Condition of Appointment of Officers and Other Employees) Regulation, 2015 came into effect on 25 February 2016. Subsequently, a recruitment notification dated 18 January 2019 was issued, excluding the petitioners.
The petitioners challenged the 2015 departmental note, the 2015 notification, and the 2019 recruitment notification, asserting that their continuous service, recruitment through public advertisement, and performance of permanent duties entitled them to regularisation. They claimed discriminatory treatment as others similarly placed, and in some cases junior, were regularised. They alleged violations of Articles 14 and 23 of the Constitution of India.
Representing the petitioners, Mr. Ahmed submitted that the Corporation had already agreed in principle to regularise their services and that the petitioners were engaged in perennial duties essential to the Corporation's functioning. It was argued that denying them regular status, despite fulfilling such essential roles, amounted to exploitation.
The State, represented by Mr. Dey, opposed the petitions, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1. It was contended that contractual employees cannot claim perpetual regularisation and that one-time regularisation had already been done in 2007. The State further argued that the petitioners were not recruited under any formal rules or sanctioned posts and thus their appointments were illegal.
Justice Rai Chattopadhyay recorded, "The petitioners have been allowed to work since the date of their appointment, without any interruption with the respondent corporation. This at one hand proves the perpetual nature of the job they have been discharging and on the other hand shows that the respondent/Corporation has utilised their labour to carry on the functions of the Corporation for prolonged period, continuously and uninterruptedly, though without reciprocating the petitioners with permanent status."
The Court also stated, "The functions discharged by the petitioners cannot be termed as temporary in nature. The Corporation basically would not have any existence without the functions in which the petitioners take part."
Referring to the Supreme Court's observations in Shripal and Another vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025 SCC Online SC 221), the Court noted, "By requiring the same tasks ... but still compensating them inadequately and inconsistently the Respondent Employer has effectively engaged in an unfair labour practice."
Addressing the applicability of Uma Devi, the Court said, "Though Uma Devi distinguishes between illegal and irregular appointments, it cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment."
On the issue of sanctioned posts, the Court stated, "Had it been otherwise and had the Recruitment Rules been promulgated at that point of time there would not have been any necessity to appoint any person on contract basis." It held the distinction between illegal and irregular appointments drawn in Uma Devi not applicable in this factual background.
The Court further recorded, "The petitioners have been working continuously and uninterruptedly, on temporary basis, since from the date of their respective appointments, till date. Their appointment or continuation in service has not been subject to any Court order but due to voluntary extension of their contract period by the Authority from time to time."
Rejecting the claim that regularisation was limited to the 15 employees regularised in 2007, the Court observed, "Employee junior than the petitioners has been regularized in the said order ... This is a glaring manifestation of sheer arbitrariness having been exercised."
The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Jaggo vs Union of India (2024 SCC Online SC 3826), observing, "It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation... Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to."
In conclusion, the Court held that, "The petitioners having served the respondent/Corporation on contract basis and temporarily though continuously and uninterruptedly, for more than 10 years in the substantive positions therein ... would be eligible for regularization in the posts sanctioned later on for the respondent/Corporation in the year 2015."
The Court directed that the office-note dated 18 March 2015 be set aside. It also set aside the notification dated 31 July 2015 to the extent that it restrained the Corporation from regularising the petitioners' services. Additionally, the recruitment notification dated 18 January 2019 was set aside.
The Court ordered that the Corporation and the State Government "shall take immediate appropriate measures for regularization of the writ petitioners." It further directed that "The writ petitioners shall be regularized in service, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order, with fixation of their pay."
Additionally, the Court held that "Arrear salary shall be paid to the writ petitioners within a period of 2 months from the date on which the order for their regularization is issued."
The Court also permitted the respondents to publish a fresh recruitment notification only for the residual vacant sanctioned posts after issuing the regularisation orders.
The writ petitions as above are thus allowed and disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, Mr. Samim Ahmed, Mr. Aniruddha Singh, Mr. Ambiya Khatun
For the Respondents: Mr. Jahar Lal Dey, Mr. Shamim Ul Bari, Mr. Jahar Dutta, Mr. Bipin Ghosh
Case Title: Anjum Ara & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 9636 of 2019 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Rai Chattopadhyay
[Read/Download order]
