JUDGMENT 1. THIS is an appeal against the judgement dated l5th July, 1992 passed by the learned trial Judge in CO. No. 13824 (W) of 1991. By the said order the learned trial Judge directed, "the petitioners will made a fresh representation if they are actually working for years together, and the respondents concerned will consider and dispose of such representation for regularisation of service within a period of 6 months from the communication of the order, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, "and after observing that no contingency labour will be engaged as no fund for such purpose is available at the disposal of the respondents and that unless the works is of perennial nature and the appellants have worked for sufficient period in terms of absorption, the appellants cannot ask for regularisation of service. 2. IN the writ petition the subject matter of challenge was an order date 1-10-91 passed under Memo No. 1371 issued by the Superintendent, S. D. Hospital, Kandi, Murshidabad wherein it was observed that "henceforth no contingency labour will be engaged in this hospital as no fund for this purpose is available at present." The appellant's case in brief is that they are whole-time Group- D employees of the State Government working throughout the year in the sub-Divisional Hospital. Kandi, Dist. Murshidabad. Admittedly, they are working continuously from 1978/1979 by an order of the Finance department's Memo No. 6338-F date 28th June, 1980. By the said order of (he Governor the pay scale were fixed with effect from 1. 4. 1989 in the time scale of Rs. 800-15-920-18-1181-21-1265/- plus allowances as admissible to whole time Govt. Employees. It was also provided that the provisions made in the West Bengal Service (Revisions of Pay and Allowances) Rules. 1980 shall apply mutatis mutamdis to such Group- D employees who were employed throughout the year. In accordance with Memo No- 6338-F dt. 28.6.90 the salary bill of Group-D employees were presented to the treasury Officer. Kandi for necessary passing in contingent bill but the treasury Authority objected on the same bill with the observation - The bill should be presented in pay Bill form and to be debited against pay head. The matter was discussed with the S. D. O. Kandi as well as the treasury Officer jointly. It appears from a letter issued by the Superintendent. Kandi Sub-divisional Hospital addressed to the Chief Medical officer. The matter was discussed with the S. D. O. Kandi as well as the treasury Officer jointly. It appears from a letter issued by the Superintendent. Kandi Sub-divisional Hospital addressed to the Chief Medical officer. Murshidabad that for such objection of the treasury, pay of some persons were remaining held up with effect from August, 1990 and the employees were in a staring position and pressing hard to get their salaries. From the Memo of the Superintendent, Kandi Sub-divisional hospital being Memo No. 1467 date 27.12.90 it appears that the list of group- D Employee (Whole-time and throughout the year) whose pay bill under objection includes the names of all the appellants. Since the appellants have been working for' a long time as temporary employees even though employed as whole-time and throughout the year in terms of the memorandum No. 6338-F dt. 28th June, 1990 they made a representation for the regularisation and/or absorption against the regular post. But surprisingly the respondents reacted only by stopping the payment of the salaries of the appellants from August, 1990. The appellants preferred an application before His Lordship M. R. Mallick, J and His Lordship by His order dated 28th September, 19s (1 directed the payment of arrear salaries up to Puja, 1991. The respondents thereafter stopped allotting any work to them with effect from 1.10.91 on the basis of Memo, date 1.10.90 between 1979 and 1993, Thus, though the appellants claimed to be absorbed on regular basis on terms of the government order G. O. No. 1700-EMP dt. 3.8.1979 and G. O. No. 1650-EMP dated 28.8.1980 still on their representation no action was taken, and ultimately, the impugned order dt. 1.10.91 has been issued by the Superintendent, Sub-Divisional Hospital, kandi stating "henceforth no contingency labour will be engaged in this hospital as no fund this purpose is available at present." 3. MR. M. P. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that in the facts and circumstances the appellants were entitled to be regularised and that when under the order passed by the Governor of the State of West: Bengal under Memo No- 6338 - F date 28. 9. MR. M. P. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that in the facts and circumstances the appellants were entitled to be regularised and that when under the order passed by the Governor of the State of West: Bengal under Memo No- 6338 - F date 28. 9. 90 the pay of the appellants were fixed in the regular pay scale and that the provisions of the West Bengal Service (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1990 was applied mutatis mutandis, merely on the alleged ground of non-availability of the fund the appellants could not be thrown out of employment and cannot be refused to be regularised. 4. MR. Banerjee submitted that the appellants as whole-time Group-D employees employed throughout several years in the said hospital could not be denied their right to be regularised and in this connection, reference was made to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Income Tax department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association Vs. Union of India, air 1988 SC 517 wherein many class IV employees Were found to be working on daily wages for merely 8 years or more. Supreme Court relying upon its earlier decision in Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed in P and T Dept. vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2342 wherein Supreme Court directed. "we accordingly direct the Union of India said the other respondents to pay wages to the workmen who are employed as casual labourers belonging to the several categories of employees referred to above in the Posts and Telegraph Dept at the rates equivalent to the minimum pay in the pay scales of the regularly employed workers in the corresponding cadres but without any increments with effect from 5th February, 1986 on which date the first of the above two petitions, namely, writ petition No. 302 of 1986 was filed. The petitioners a reentitled to corresponding Dearness Allowance, if any, payable thereon. Whatever other benefits which are now being enjoyed by the casual labourers shall continue to be extended to them." In UP Income Tax Dept. Contingent Paid Staff case the Supreme Court directed to prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the contingent paid staff of Group- D employees as Class IV employees in the Income Tax Department. 5. FURTHER in the case of Union of India and Ors. Contingent Paid Staff case the Supreme Court directed to prepare a scheme on rational basis for absorbing as far as possible the contingent paid staff of Group- D employees as Class IV employees in the Income Tax Department. 5. FURTHER in the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Basant and Ors., reported in (1992)2 Supreme Court Cases, 679 the Supreme Court held that the casual labourer employed by railway and continuously working continuously for 120 days in open line were held to be entitled and regularised as temporary workers and that the railway have not given them the temporary status only after completing 360 days. The contingent of the railway was overruled by the Supreme: Court and the railway was directed by the Supreme Court to regularise them as temporary workers and pay wages to all employees from May 12, 1991 equal to temporary status employees allowed at the initial stage of pay within two months from the date of the order of the Supreme Court. The railway authorities were directed to accord the status of temporary employee of 105 workers who are there before the Supreme Court and further held that the workers would be entitled to one set cost from the Union of India in that case. 6. Supreme Court in the Case of Jacob M. Puttuparambil vs Kerala water Authority, AIR 1990 SC 2228 held "appointment by way of stopgap arrangement continued in service for many years. The employees were entitled to be regularised in services, otherwise such acts would an affront to the concept of job security and would run counter to the constitutional philosophy, particularly the concept of right to work in Art. 41 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the Case of Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch vs. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2342 held that "the question of regularisation in service must be examined keeping in mind the historical as well as constitution perspective. Our constitution makers were aware of the hardships and insecurity faced by working classes. The preamble promises socio-economic justice, the fundamental rights confers certain justiciable socio-economic goals which State must strive to attain. These three altogether constitute the core and conscience of the Constitution. India is a developing country. It has a vast surplus labour market. Large scale unemployment offers a matching opportunity to the employer to exploit the needy. The preamble promises socio-economic justice, the fundamental rights confers certain justiciable socio-economic goals which State must strive to attain. These three altogether constitute the core and conscience of the Constitution. India is a developing country. It has a vast surplus labour market. Large scale unemployment offers a matching opportunity to the employer to exploit the needy. Under such market conditions the employer can dictate his terms of employment taking advantage of the absence of bargaining power in the other. The unorganised job seeker is left with no option but to accept employment on take- it- or- leave-it terms offered by the employer. Such terms of employment offer no job security and the employee is left to the mercy of the employer. The employers have betrayed an increasing tendency to employ temporary hands even on-regular and permanent jobs with a view to circumventing the protection offered to the working classes under the benevolent legislations enacted from time to time. It is unfair and unreasonable to remove people who have been rendering service since sometime as such removal has serious consequences. The family of the employees who have settled down and accommodated its needs to the emoluments received by the brand winner will face economic ruination if the job is suddenly taken away. Besides the precious period of early life devoted in the service of the establishment will be wholly wasted and incumbent will be rendered "age barred" for securing a job elsewhere. It is indeed unfair to use they, generate hope and feeling of job security in him attune to the concept of job security and would run counter to the constitutional philosophy particularly the concept of right to work in Art. 41 of the Constitution." 7. IN the instant case applying the principles laid down by the Supreme court the appellants were admittedly whole-time Group D employees and employed throughout several years and their right to be regularised could not be taken away by simply taking true plea as no' fund was available they would not be appointed as contingent workers. IN the instant case applying the principles laid down by the Supreme court the appellants were admittedly whole-time Group D employees and employed throughout several years and their right to be regularised could not be taken away by simply taking true plea as no' fund was available they would not be appointed as contingent workers. Had it been the fact that the works are temporary and not perennial in nature and that no money is sanctioned for them in that event the appellants could not claim for regularisation but in the instant case they have been placed in the regular pay scale by an order of the Governor and had been given all the protection and benefits under the West Bengal Service (Revision of Pay and allowances) Rules, 1990 and that pay was fixed with affect from 1st April, 1989 on regular basis. There may be dispute under what head the bill should be dispute under what head the bill should be presented but on that ground their valuable right in service could not be taken away. No affidavit- in- opposition was filed on behalf of the respondents before the learned trial Judge and nobody also appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose this appeal. 8. WE are of the view that it is a fit and proper case where applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the appellants some or whom are working from 1978 and have rendered several years of contingency service as whole-time employees could not be thrown out of the employment. Admittedly, the appellants are in regular establishment of the government as whole-time contingent]; staff and working throughout the years for long and some of them more than 13 years, they are entitled to be absorbed on permanent basis; We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial Judge was wrong in disposing of the writ application without issuing any direction for regularisation. Accordingly, the order of the learned trial Judge dt. 15th July, 1992 is set aside in C. O. No. 13824 (W) of 1991 and the respondents are directed to regularise the appellants service by permanently absorbing them in the regular establishment and regular post in the pay scale fixed by an order of Governor Memo no. 6880 dt. 28th June, 1980 within a period of ten months from today. 15th July, 1992 is set aside in C. O. No. 13824 (W) of 1991 and the respondents are directed to regularise the appellants service by permanently absorbing them in the regular establishment and regular post in the pay scale fixed by an order of Governor Memo no. 6880 dt. 28th June, 1980 within a period of ten months from today. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. Let a writ of mandamus do issue directing the respondents to regularise and permanently absorb the appellants in the post of regular establishment with the pay scale as already provided within a period of 10 weeks from the date of the communication of this order. Appeal allowed.