Long Uninterrupted Service Against Sanctioned Posts Warrants Regularisation | Contractual Employees Performing Perennial Duties Must Be Absorbed | Calcutta High Court Orders Regularisation Within Twelve Weeks
- Post By 24law
- July 1, 2025

Safiya Malik
The High Court at Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee has directed the regularisation of petitioners who were engaged as contractual Assistant Engineers and Sub-Assistant Engineers under a state-controlled corporation. The Court held that the engagements were not illegal and that the nature of work performed by the petitioners was of a perennial character, necessitating regularisation. It further instructed the Corporation and the State authorities to complete the regularisation process and release all consequential benefits within a stipulated period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The request for a stay on the judgment was rejected.
The petitioners were initially engaged on a contractual basis under advertisements dated 28.05.2014 and 19.05.2015 issued by the West Bengal Medical Services Corporation Limited (the Corporation). They were appointed to the posts of Assistant Engineer and Sub-Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Civil) at a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 20,400/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively, with the engagement terms lasting two years. These were extended periodically through undertakings stating that such engagements did not guarantee regular employment.
The Corporation was formed under the Companies Act, 1956, in 2010, and was primarily tasked with implementing infrastructure projects under the National Rural Health Mission. The Corporation, though a government-owned entity, was declared self-sustaining, receiving only limited project-based financial support from the State Government.
Subsequently, the State Government issued several policy documents—specifically, Memo Nos. 642-F (24.01.2006) and an earlier memo dated 26.09.2005—indicating that contractual employees recruited against regular vacancies could be brought under the regular establishment, subject to approvals by the Appropriate Authority and the Finance Department.
In line with these directives, the Department of Health & Family Welfare created multiple posts, including 85 posts of Sub-Assistant Engineers and Assistant Engineers for hospital maintenance and equipment procurement. Petitioners were recruited against these posts through a formal selection process and were appointed by the Corporation in 2014 and 2015.
The Corporation later published a notice dated 25.10.2016 confirming its intention to regularise the services of contractual employees recruited through open advertisement, stating: "the Board of Directors expressed its intention to consider the absorption of existing contractual employees... into regular employment of the Corporation." The process would be selective and phased, based on recommendations by a Selection Committee.
The petitioners completed two years of continuous service and claimed eligibility for regularisation as per the Corporation's criteria. The Corporation, however, issued only extension orders in 2017 and 2018 without moving forward with regularisation. Petitioners’ subsequent representations went unanswered.
The State and Corporation, in their affidavits, contended that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts and that their regularisation was impermissible under the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC 1. The Corporation further stated that it could not proceed with regularisation without Finance Department approval and cited financial constraints.
The petitioners responded with documentary evidence including an order dated 13.05.2024, which showed that 68 engineers, including themselves, had been engaged against sanctioned posts. Financial data was also submitted, asserting that the Corporation generated sufficient profit, including Rs. 18 crores in 2017–18 and Rs. 53.22 crores in 2023–24.
The petitioners relied on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions to claim that their appointments were at worst "irregular" and not illegal, and that long, uninterrupted service on sanctioned posts warranted regularisation.
Justice Chatterjee recorded that "the petitioners possess the requisite qualifications for appointment" and had been recruited "pursuant to a recruitment process conducted in accordance with the recruitment rules applicable to regular posts." The Court found that their work was of a "perennial" nature and that "the petitioners' entry into contractual service cannot be classified as an illegal appointment and at best, it may be characterized as irregular."
The judgment noted the State’s earlier memoranda acknowledging contractual engagements and recommending their regularisation. It stated: "steps were initiated to regularize the services of the petitioners and bring them under the regular establishment" and that a Selection Committee had been formed to facilitate this process.
Justice Chatterjee cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826), quoting: "While the judgment in Uma Devi... aimed to distinguish between 'illegal' and 'irregular' appointments... its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees."
Similarly, the Court referred to Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad (2025 INSC 144), recording that "the judgment in Uma Devi cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative contractual engagements that continue for years." The principle was reinforced by the Court’s further reliance on Vinod Kumar v. Union of India [(2024) 9 SCC 327].
The Court held that no contemporaneous records supported the respondents’ claim that the petitioners’ engagement was "project-based." It stated: "such a plea, not substantiated by any official document or contemporaneous evidence, cannot be validly raised for the first time in an affidavit."
Regarding financial constraints, the Court held: "the Corporation’s plea of financial hardship is untenable and cannot be sustained in law." It stated that the Board of Directors, which included the Principal Secretary of the Finance Department, had already approved regularisation, thereby nullifying the plea for lack of approval.
The Court directed that the petitioners be regularised in their respective posts. It specifically stated: "the respondents are directed to regularise the services of the petitioners in their respective posts, and to release all consequential benefits, including promotional and retirement benefits, as applicable."
It further ordered: "The entire process of regularisation shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
A request for a stay on the operation of the order was rejected with the statement: "Prayer is considered and rejected."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ekramul Bari, Sk. Imtiaj Uddin
For the Respondents: Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Mr. Sadhan Kumar Halder, Mr. Amitava Chaudhuri, Mr. N. Roy
Case Title: Sandip Mondal & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 12347 of 2018
Bench: Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
Comment / Reply From
You May Also Like
Recent Posts
Recommended Posts
Newsletter
Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!