G. R. BHATTACHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE six writ petitioners of this writ petition have from time to time been engaged as Casual Labourers on daily-wage basis under the Collectorate of Howrah. The District Magistrate, Howrah issued a circular under Memo No. 406 RG (NZ) dated 8-8-91, annexure-D to the writ petition regarding the procedure to be followed in the matter of engaging any contingent labourer in any department. Clause (4) of that circular provides that no contingent labourer shall be engaged (by any officer) for a period of more than 15 days a month provided under the existing Government orders. The petitioners are aggrieved mainly against the said clause (4) of the said circular. Incidentally, the other clauses of the said circular may also be briefly stated here. Clause (1) provides that there shall be a requisition from the officer concerned for any engagement (of any contingent labourer) which shah be sent to the Nezarath Dy. Collector well ahead. Clause (2) inter alia provides that the Nezarath Dy. Collector shall depute a contingent labourer with specific approval of the D. M. or A. D. M. (G) on the basis of the requisition. Clause (3) provides that the Nezarath Dy. Collector shall engage contingent labourers only from among the persons selected through interview of candidates sent recently by the employment exchange and if such selected candidates are not readily available, only then the persons working in the Collectorate for several years in the same capacity, particularly those recommended for absorption, will be considered. At the very outset the officers however have been reminded in the said circular that the contingent labourers were to be requisitioned only after proper assessment of the quantum of job to be done. The petitioners have challenged the said circular issued by the District Magistrate, Howrah, particularly clause (4) thereof by which it was directed that no contingent labourer should be engaged for more than 15 days a month. The petitioners have challenged the said circular issued by the District Magistrate, Howrah, particularly clause (4) thereof by which it was directed that no contingent labourer should be engaged for more than 15 days a month. ( 2 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that under the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department No. 1700-EMP dated 3rd August, 1979 as well as the Government of West Bengal, Department of Panchayats and Community Development No. 96 (34) dated the 4th January, 1984 the casual labourers who have already worked for a continuous period of more than 3 years for at least 240 days in each year are entitled to be absorbed in the regular establishment. The grievance of the petitioners is that by restricting the engagement of individual labourer to a maximum period of 15 days a month, as has been done by clause (4) of the impugned Memo No. 406 dated 8-8-91 the District Magistrate, Howrah has virtually sought to supersede and frustrate the Government of West Bengal, Labour Department Memo No. 1700-EMP dated the 3rd August, 1979 and the Department of Panchayats and Community Development No. 96 (34) dated the 4th January, 1984 which is based on the said Labour Department memo inasmuch as by reason of the restriction imposed by the District Magistrate by limiting the maximum period of engagement in a month no casual labourer will be able to attain the target of working 240 days in a year which is a requirement for attracting the aforesaid Labour Department Memo No. 1700-EMP. ( 3 ) IN the writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs, viz. ( 3 ) IN the writ petition the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs, viz. " (A) (i) to rescind, set aside and/or withdraw the circular bearing Memo No. 406-RG (NZ) dated August 8, 1991 issued by the District Magistrate, Howrah ; (ii) to give employment to the petitioners as contingent menial staff in the Howrah Collectorate forthwith ; (iii) not to engage other persons as contingent menial staff in Howrah Collectorate in place of the petitioners; (iv) to give employment to each of the petitioners for not less than 240 days per year as contingent menials in Howrah Collectorate so that the petitioners may not be deprived of the benefits of memorandums, annexures A, B and C to the application ; and (v) to regularise the services of the petitioners for rendering services as contingent menials/casual labours for more than three years in Howrah Collectorate. " ( 4 ) IT is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 6 were appointed as contingent menials under the Howrah Collectorate in 1983 and since then each of them has worked as such menial in each year upto the middle of 1991 and that the petitioner No. 2 was first appointed as contingent menial in February, 1985, the petitioner No. 4 in August, 1988 and the petitioner No. 5 in February, 1989 and all of them worked each year upto the middle of 1991. It is the further contention of the petitioners that the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 have rendered more than 120 days of service per year since the respective dates of their first appointment and that the petitioner No. 3 and the petitioner No. 6 each rendered more bran 240 days of service per year for more titan 3 consecutive years. ( 5 ) THE allegation of the petitioners about the number of days they worked has been denied by the respondents and in paragraph 8 of their affidavit-in-opposition the respondents as per their concerned register have given year wise the number of days for which the respective petitioners worked as casual labourers. From that list it appears that only the petitioner No. 4 worked for 140 days in 1990 and neither the said petitioner in any other year nor the other petitioners in any year worked for 120 days as alleged. From that list it appears that only the petitioner No. 4 worked for 140 days in 1990 and neither the said petitioner in any other year nor the other petitioners in any year worked for 120 days as alleged. The figures rather indicate far lesser number of days. The correctness of this is however denied by the petitioners and in paragraph-8 of their affidavit-in-reply the petitioners have given the number of days in different years for which they worked. They have also annexed Xerox copies of certain documents to their affidavit-in-reply. It is also the contention of the petitioners that some of the petitioners were given bonus in certain years in view of the fact that they worked for more than 120 days in the particular years. There is a sharp controversy on the factual aspect of the question as to for how many days the petitioners worked in the particular years and it is indeed difficult to precisely determine the same in this writ proceeding as this requires a detailed study of all the materials relevant for the purpose which all are also not before the court. It is true that under the Labour Department Memo No. 1700-EMP dated the 3rd August, 1979 read with No. 1650-EMP dated the 28th August, 1980 the qualifying period of service for absorption of casual labourers is 240 days in each year for a continuous period of three years. Seasonal workers who have worked for at least 120 days in a season for a period of 5 years are also required under the Government circular to be considered along with candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment in the regular establishment. The petitioners are of course not seasonal workers. There is however some force in the argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that if there is enough work, in that case the District Magistrate is not justified in restricting the period of engagement of individual contingent labourer to 15 days only per month as that will unduly deprive the contingent labourers of the benefit of Government circulars. The respondents however denied that this restriction which has been introduced only in August, 1991 has been imposed far depriving the casual labourers of the benefit of the Labour Department Memo No. 1700-EMP or of any other Government circular. The respondents however denied that this restriction which has been introduced only in August, 1991 has been imposed far depriving the casual labourers of the benefit of the Labour Department Memo No. 1700-EMP or of any other Government circular. It is the case of the respondents that this restriction has been imposed only for the purpose of ensuring equal distribution of work amongst the casual labourers. Even if it is assumed that the restriction of engaging individual contingent labourer only to 15 days in the maximum per month has been imposed for ensuring equal distribution of work, yet we cannot fail to note that this will have a sinister effect of depriving the contingent labourers of ever getting the benefit of absorption under the Labour Department Memo No. 1700-FMP although there may be sufficient work and although a good number of casual labourers may be engaged throughout the year. The benefit of the letter and spirit of the Labour Department Memo No. 1700-EMP which the Government in its wisdom and being guided by its sense of justice thought it proper to offer to the casual labourers should not be frustrated by subordinate administrative authorities in the name of making equal distribution of work amongst the casual labourers. It may be noted here that sometime after the issuance of the Labour Department Memo No. 1700-FMP it came to the notice of the Government that Some of the subordinate administrative authorities had started retrenching casual workers in certain cases on the strength of the said Labour Department Memo No. 1700-EMP. In that background the Government considered it necessary to issue the Labour Department Memorandum No. 1650-EMP dated 28-8-80 for clarifying that retrenchment of casual labourers was never the intention of the Government in issuing the Memo No. 1700-EMP and that the object of the said Government order was to provide for absorption in regular service of certain categories of casual workers who satisfied the prescribed norms. In view of the Governments' well-intended measure and policy of absorbing casual labourers after they have put in service for a period of at least 240 days in a year for a continuous period of 3 years it will be unfair on the part of the subordinate administrative authorities to take such measure as would not only permanently deny the benefit of the Government's measure and policy but would rather create, maintain and perpetuate a half-starved reserve force of casual labourers as an adjunct to the permanent establishment for perennial exploitation contrary to the policy of the Government. If any list of casual labourers has to be maintained in any administrative establishment, as perhaps it has to be for meeting the casual eventualities occurring more or less regularly in many establishments, as it seems to he the case also with the Howrah Collectorate, such list must not be of a disproportionately big size. Rather the length of such list must be commensurate with the expected volume of work dependent upon casual eventualities assessed on the basis of the past experience relating to the establishment. The list of casual labourers should be prepared in such manner that the persons included in the list get work, if such work is available in the usual and normal course, of at least 240 days in a year so that on completion of 3 years the concerned casual labourers get themselves qualified for absorption in the regular establishment serially against available or future vacancies. Fairness demands that if casual work is there and if casual labourers are employed in jobs of perennial nature it should be the endeavour of the administration to see that they get opportunity to be absorbed in the regular establishment in due course. In this connection, it is also to be mentioned that even apart from Government circulars, stop gap, ad hoc or casual engagement for a long period without regularisation has been judicially deprecated in very strong and emphatic terms. This aspect has been also elaborately discussed by me in my decision in Tahsil-Mohurris v. State of West Bengal, 1993 (2) CLJ 330. However from he impugned memo No. 406-RG (NZ) dated 8-8-91 issued by District Magistrate, Howrah it appears that the District Magistrate directed tire Nezarath Dy. Collector to engage contingent labourers only from among the persons selected through interview of candidates sent recently by tire Employment Exchange. However from he impugned memo No. 406-RG (NZ) dated 8-8-91 issued by District Magistrate, Howrah it appears that the District Magistrate directed tire Nezarath Dy. Collector to engage contingent labourers only from among the persons selected through interview of candidates sent recently by tire Employment Exchange. It is therefore indicated that possibly a panel has already been prepared through interview of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange for engagement as contingent labourers whenever necessary. The fact that the names were obtained from the Employment Exchange in connection with the engagement of contingent labourers and interview of such candidates was also required to be taken, is all the more a reason that the persons who may be included in the panel of contingent labourers should in due course be appointed or absorbed in the regular establishment gradually if the candidates have worked for the requisite number of days for a continuous period of 3 years. I would like to emphasise again that such panel therefore should contain only such number of candidates as can reasonably be expected to be engaged for such number of days as would qualify them in due course for being absorbed in the regular establishment and the panel should not be unduly or disproportionately long. If due to subsequent absorption of candidates from the panel in regular establishment or for any other reason whatsoever, further addition of names to the panel becomes necessary the same can be done by the same process by obtaining names from the Employment Exchange. Obviously the list should not be an unduly long one. Again, the persons included in the list should be given an equitable distribution of work as far as possible ensuring that the candidates may in due course gradually be absorbed in the regular establishment for rendering individual service for the requisite period. Obviously the list should not be an unduly long one. Again, the persons included in the list should be given an equitable distribution of work as far as possible ensuring that the candidates may in due course gradually be absorbed in the regular establishment for rendering individual service for the requisite period. ( 6 ) AGAIN, since the petitioners were being engaged for quite sometime as casual labourers in the different offices in the Collectorate, fairness in the general sense and as an import of the letter and spirit of the Labour Department Memo No. 1650-EMP dated 28-8-1980 demands that the petitioners should not be retrenched or excluded from the panel of casual workers and their names also should be included in the panel of casual workers to be or that might have been prepared on the basis of sponsoring of candidates by the Employment Exchange and that the petitioners also should be given work equitably without discrimination. Although, as I have already observed, the impugned order of the District Magistrate restricting the engagement of individual casual labourer to a period of 15 days in a month has the sinister effect of frustrating the letter and spirit of tire relevant Government circulars including the Labour Department Memo No. 1700emp regarding the absorption of casual labourers, I do not however propose to quash or interfere with the same because that may affect the professed equal distribution of work amongst the empanelled casual labourers if the panel that might have been already prepared is disproportionately long, the size of the panel not being known or disclosed to the court. On the other hand, any direction for shortening the already operating panel by excluding names from the panel will also be unjust. In the circumstances, a balance can be struck by directing tire District Magistrate to take steps for absorption in the permanent establishment of the casual labourers who have already put in at least 120 days of work per year for a continuous period of 3 years. In the circumstances, a balance can be struck by directing tire District Magistrate to take steps for absorption in the permanent establishment of the casual labourers who have already put in at least 120 days of work per year for a continuous period of 3 years. Such direction, by reason of the reduction of the number of days from 240 to 120 days per year will keep the benefit of the Labour Department No. 1700-EMP unaffected by mitigating in a derivative way the rigour of the restriction imposed by the District Magistrate in his impugned memo by limiting the maximum period of engagement of a casual labour to only 15 days in a month. In the circumstances, I issue the following directions for compliance by the District Magistrate, Howrah (1) The District Magistrate, Howrah shall prepare a panel of casual labourers from amongst the names obtained or that may be obtained from the Employment Exchange for the purpose, if no such panel has already been prepared. (2) In consideration of the fact that the petitioners already worked as casual labourers/contingent menials in the Collectorate their names shall be included in the said panel, whether already prepared or to be prepared in view of the aforesaid direction, irrespective of the question whether their names were or have been sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The other persons who might have worked as casual labourers in the offices under the Collectorate also shall be included in the panel of casual labourers unless they are no more available. (3) In preparing a panel of casual labourers it shall be seen that the panel does not become unduly or disproportionately long and that the size of the panel is commensurate with the expected volume of work arising of casual eventualities assessed on the basis of the past experience relating to the establishment. (4) There shall be equitable and equal distribution of work amongst the empanelled casual labourers, as far as practicable. (5) Comprehensive record shall be maintained regarding the engagement of the casual labourers from which it can be readily ascertained as to for how many days and on what dates each empanelled casual labourer has been engaged in a year. (4) There shall be equitable and equal distribution of work amongst the empanelled casual labourers, as far as practicable. (5) Comprehensive record shall be maintained regarding the engagement of the casual labourers from which it can be readily ascertained as to for how many days and on what dates each empanelled casual labourer has been engaged in a year. (6) Steps shall be taken by the District Magistrate to absorb the casual workers who might have put in service as casual labourer at least 120 days in a year for consecutive three years, And this should be an yearly exercise. (7) The petitioners are granted liberty to apply now to the District Magistrate for absorption in the regular establishment. The District Magistrate on receipt of such application shall consider the same in the ground of the materials that may be annexed to the application and also such other materials as may be referred to by the petitioners in the petition and also of such other materials and office records as are relevant to the matter and shall dispose of each of the applications within 4 months from the date of receipt of the application by passing a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant. In the event the District Magistrate finds that the petitioners or any or more of them have already rendered at least 120 days of individual service as casual labourer in a year for a continuous period of 3 years, in that case he shall take necessary steps for early absorption of them in the regular establishment. , (8) Till the petitioners are absorbed in due course in the regular establishment their names shall continue to remain in the panel of casual labourers and they shall be given work equitably within the framework of the scheme for distributing equal work amongst the empanelled casual labourers as far as practicable. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, without any order as to costs. Petition disposed of of.q