Sunil Kumar Biswas v. University of Calcutta — 1995 DIGILAW 451 (CAL)

Judgment Dipak Prakas Kundu, J.: 1. In this writ application, the writ petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for a Declaration declaring the petitioners as permanent employees of the Calcutta University forthwith and also a Writ and/or Writs in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and each one of them, their servants, subordinates, agents and/or assignees to extend the benefit of the permanent employees to the petitioners with effect from the date of joining of the petitioners in the Calcutta University and also to extend the benefits of revised corresponding pay scales to the petitioners with effect from 1.2.86. 2. It appears from the writ petition that the writ petitioners No.1 and 2 are now working for gain as Index Computer in the Office of the Centre of Advance Study in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta. The petitioner No.3 is now working for gain as Junior Assistant-cum-Typist in the Office of the Centre of Advanced Study in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta. The petitioner No.4 is now working for gain as Peon for the Research Project of the Centre of Advanced Study in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta. 3. According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Index Computer in the Office of the Centre of Advanced Study in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta in the scale of Rs. 125-10-255-EB-15-360/- plus other admissible allowances as per Rules of the University of Calcutta on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and sanctioned by Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Calcutta, by the Director of Centre of Advanced Study, University of Calcutta. The petitioner No.1 was appointed by virtue of an order issued on 14.10.77, but it appears from Annexure A of the writ petition that the order of appointment was issued on 14.11.77 and not on 14.10.77. 4. According to the writ petitioners, the writ petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Index Computer on 14.11.77 in the Office of the Centre of Advanced Study in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta in the aforesaid pay scale by the Director of the Centre of Advanced Study in the Department of Ancient Indian History, University of Calcutta. It appears from Annexure B of the writ petition that like the petitioner No. 1 the writ petitioner No. 2 was also appointed on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and sanctioned by Pro Vice Chancellor (B.F. & F ) : CU 5. According to the writ petitioners, the writ petitioner No.3 was appointed as Junior-cum-Typist on 29.6.84. In the Office of the Centre of Advanced Study in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta in the scale of pay of Rs. 400-900/- plus usual allowances. His order of appointment was issued by the Secretary, University College of Arts and Commerce, University of Calcutta. It is to be noted here that in the year, 1982, the pay scale of the writ petitioners No.1 and 2 was also enhanced in the scale of Rs. 400-900/-. It appears from Annexure C of the writ petition, that the petitioner No.3 was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period of six months with effect from the date of joining of his duties. 6. According to the writ petitioners, the writ petitioner No. 4 was appointed as Peon in the Research Project of the Centre of Advanced Study in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta on 6.9.78 in the scale of pay of Rs. 80-115/-. The order of appointment of the writ petitioner No.4 is Annexure D of the writ petition. 7. It has been stated in the writ petition that before the aforesaid appointments were given, an advertisement was published in the Amrita Bazar Patrika on 27.8.77, whereby the applications were invited for the post of one Research Associate, two Index Computers and one Junior-cum-Typist. The writ petitioners claimed that from the said advertisement, it was revealed that each of the posts was temporary and might be terminated on 31st March, 1978. The said advertisement also contained requisite qualifications, which were necessary for those posts. 8. It is the case of the writ petitioners that on the basis of the said advertisement, the petitioners made applications for appointment to the post of Index Computers, Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and Peon respectively and the Selection Committee was formed to scrutinise the applications made by the candidates and thereafter, the petitioners were appointed in their respective posts. 8. It is the case of the writ petitioners that on the basis of the said advertisement, the petitioners made applications for appointment to the post of Index Computers, Junior Assistant-cum-Typist and Peon respectively and the Selection Committee was formed to scrutinise the applications made by the candidates and thereafter, the petitioners were appointed in their respective posts. It may be mentioned here that while the writ petitioners' case is that in the advertisement, the applications were invited for Index Computers Research Associates and Junior Assistant-cum-Typist. Yet they contended that pursuant to the said advertisement, one of the petitioners also applied for the post of Peon, which is obviously not correct. The writ petitioners contended that though in the Advertisement, it was stated that the posts mentioned in the said advertisement were admittedly temporary and the services might have been terminated on March 31, 1978, yet the orders of appointment do not contain any such stipulation. 9. The writ petitioners contended that the appointment letters issued to the writ petitioners clearly show that the petitioners were appointed for their respective posts. It is also claimed by the writ petitioners that since their appointment, the petitioners have been discharging their duties satisfactorily and uninterruptedly for more than 13 years. At present, it is the case of the writ petitioners that the grievances of the writ petitioners are that although the petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 were appointed in the year, 1977 and 1978 and the writ petitioner No.3 was appointed in the year 1984 and have been discharging their duties satisfactorily and uninterruptedly, yet, the services of the writ petitioners have not been made permanent and the benefits of the permanent employees have not been accorded to the writ petitioners. 10. The writ petitioners sated that when the respondent No.1 moved the Government of West Bengal for continuation of the Centre of Advanced Study of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta and also for sanction of necessary recurring grants, the Government of West Bengal sanctioned one post of Research Associate, two posts of Index Computers and one post of Junior Assistant-cum-Typist. 11. It is further case of the writ petitioners that the Syndicate of the Calcutta University accepted the proposal of the Government of West Bengal regarding the creation of the said posts of the Centre. As per the sanction of the Government, Dr. 11. It is further case of the writ petitioners that the Syndicate of the Calcutta University accepted the proposal of the Government of West Bengal regarding the creation of the said posts of the Centre. As per the sanction of the Government, Dr. Smt. Rama Chatterjee was appointed on 1.10.77 as Research Associate, Sri Sunil Biswas and Md. Giasuddin Mallick i.e. the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Index Computers on 15.11.77. Sri Panchanan Sen, the petitioner No.3 was appointed as Junior Assistant-cumTypist on 2.7.84. Sri Gobinda Pal was appointed as Peon on 11.9.78. 12. It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the posts sanctioned by the Government against which the petitioners were appointed were not for any particular scheme. According to the writ petitioners, it appears that the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department, Audit Branch, issued a memorandum being No. 6059-Fdated 25.6.79 regarding conversion of temporary posts continuing for more than 3 years into permanent one and it further appears from the said Memorandum that since a very large number of posts were continuing for years together on a temporary basis and as a result, the employees were being deprived of the usual benefits of permanency, therefore, the Government decided some principles for conversion of temporary posts into permanent posts. A copy of the said Memorandum has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure C. 13. The writ petitioners state that the Registrar of University of Calcutta by virtue of his letter bearing No. CAS/AIHC/6S08/47/83-84 dated 13.6.83 informed the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Government of West Bengal, that Md. Giasuddin Mallick, Sri Sunil Kumar Biswas, Smt. Swapan Chakravarti, Sri Gobinda Pal and Dr. Sm. Rama Chatterjee were appointed persuant to regular advertisement and selection against the posts sanctioned by the Government of West Bengal by virtue of Order No. 916-Edn. (U) dated 1.7.77 for the schemes in the department of Ancient Indian History and Culture in Centre of Advanced Study. Such statement was made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition. 14. It has been stated by the writ petitioners that the departmental Committee of the Ancient Indian History and Culture at its meeting held on 1.6.83 had resolved that the Departmental Committee considered the letter of Dr. Sm. Such statement was made in paragraph 13 of the writ petition. 14. It has been stated by the writ petitioners that the departmental Committee of the Ancient Indian History and Culture at its meeting held on 1.6.83 had resolved that the Departmental Committee considered the letter of Dr. Sm. Rama Chatterjee and Giasuddin Mallick along with a copy of the-Memorandum of the Government of West Bengal No. 6059-F (Finance Department) dated 25th June, 1979 and resolved that necessary action regarding the permanency of the services of the applicants be taken up with the appropriate Authorities. The Resolution has been quoted in extenso at pages 11 and 12 of the writ petition. It appears from the said petition that it was resolved that in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the said Resolution and also in consideration of the policy of the Government of West Bengal as laid down in their Finance Department Memorandum No.6059-F dated 25.6.79 in Clause (a) it was requested that the Government of West Bengal might be pleased to declare the posts mentioned in the said Resolution as permanent for retention of the services of the incumbents on permanent basis. It appears from paragraph 14 of the writ petition the Deputy Secretary Education Department, Government of West Bengal by his Memo No. 984-Edn. (U) dated 15.9.84 wanted to know whether the University had decided to make the Centre a permanent one on its own or to merge it with the department of Ancient Indian History and Culture after doing away with the name of the centre. 15. It appears from paragraph 15 of the writ petition that the Registrar, University of Calcutta by his letter bearing No. Est./3337/136 dated 22.1.85 informed the Deputy Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Education Department, inter alia as follows:- "The Departmental Committee at its meeting held on 2.8.84 decided that the posts sanctioned by the Government of West Bengal on a temporary basis be made permanent and the present incumbents including the Research Associate be confirmed to their respective posts. The decision of the Departmental Committee will be referred to the Syndicate at an early date and that the posts will be absorbed in the scheme of the Advanced Study of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta". 16. The decision of the Departmental Committee will be referred to the Syndicate at an early date and that the posts will be absorbed in the scheme of the Advanced Study of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta". 16. It appears from paragraph 16 of the writ petition that on 21.9.89 Syndicate of the Calcutta University took the following decision regarding confirmation of services of the petitioners:- "The Departmental Committee also discussed at length the problems of the CAS/AIHC. The deliberations ended with the following observations and recommendations: A number of staff of the CAS of Ancient Indian History and Culture are not being confirmed though they are working for many years and permanent posts are lying vacant. This is seriously affecting the research activities of the Centre. The Departmental Committee in consideration of their satisfactory and uninterrupted service, recommends the following steps for regularising the service of the staff of CAS:- (1) Smt. Swapna Chakraborty appointed on 15.12.78 against permanent vacancy of keeper of Records created by G.O. No. 666-Edn. (U) dated 27.4.78 be confirmed as her performance has been satisfactory. (2) Sri Gobinda Pal, a Peon appointed on 6.9.78 against the permanent post created under G.O. No. 666-Edn (U) dated 27.4.78 be confirmed as his performance is satisfactory. (3) Sri Sunil Biswas and Md. Giasuddin Mallick appointed as Index Computers on 14.11.77 may please be confirmed against the two posts of Index Computers created in terms of UGC letter No. F1-38/62(H) dated 6.3.64. (4) Sri Panchanan Sen who jointed on 2.7.84 as Junior Assistant against a temporary post created for research scheme of CAS under C.O. No. 916-Edn. (U) dated 1.7.77 be confirmed against permanent post of keeper of Records created under G.O. No. 666-Edn. (U) dated 27.4.78 as both carry the same scale of pay. It is further recommended that a permanent post of Research Associate be created and that Dr. Rama Chatterjee, who has been working as Research Associate since October, 1977 and delivering regular lectures to the students and enjoying the scale and other benefits of a lecturer (as granted by the UGC Letter No. F. 5-1/68 (SII) dated 6.12.68) be confirmed to that permanent post because it is felt that her fruitful services are indispensable for the research and teaching activities of the department." 17. The case of the University has been elaborately stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition. The case of the University has been elaborately stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition. In Clause (u) of paragraph 6 of the affidavit in-opposition, it has been stated that the State Government vide letter No.547-Edn. (U) dated 25.3.85 approved the retention of the above post till 31.5.85. The term "above post" referred to the post held by the writ petitioners. Thus, it was contended on behalf of the University that after such retention, no further retention was made by the Government of West Bengal. In clause (v) of paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the University stated that thereafter, the Syndicate of the University on 24.10.89/9.11.89 while considering the matter relating to the regularisation of the non-teaching staff attached to the Research Scheme in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture, University of Calcutta suggested by the Government of West Bengal constituted Committee consisting of Pro Vice-Chancellor, B.A. & F.2 Sri Parimal Kanti Das, convenor Sri Nirmal Bose, Accounts Officer, and the said Committee met on 30.7.90 and 20.7.90 and after going into the matter in details submitted the following report:- "(a) The matter relating to regularisation of the services of the concerned employees in the University be done on the same line and in the same pattern as was done in respect of other non-teaching employees working in Schemes/Projects in terms of the decision of the Syndicate in this regard. (b) All the incumbents be absorbed under regular establishment of the University after following the usual norms of appointment in such cases and they be placed to suitable departments as was done in case of similar other cases. (c) The posts of two Index Computers and one Photographer be transferred to the Central Pool and if necessary be re-designated." 18. It has further been stated by the University that after submissions of the aforesaid report, the Syndicate again met on 29.1.91 and resolved, inter alia, that the Committee constituted earlier be requested to consider the entire issue and to submit a report as early as possible for consideration of the Syndicate. 19. It has further been stated by the University that after submissions of the aforesaid report, the Syndicate again met on 29.1.91 and resolved, inter alia, that the Committee constituted earlier be requested to consider the entire issue and to submit a report as early as possible for consideration of the Syndicate. 19. In paragraph 10 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it has been stated as follows:- "In this connection I state that since the subject matter of dispute in the said application is pending before the Syndicate which is the competent authority under the statute the said application is premature and this Hon'ble Court may be pleased not to interfere with the said purported dispute at this stage". 20. From Annexure A of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the University, it appears that the Syndicate on 24.10.89/7.11.89 while considering the matter relating to the regularisation of non-teaching staff attached to the Research Scheme in the Department of Ancient Indian History and Culture suggested by the Government of West Bengal constituted a Committee, as stated earlier, to go into the matter in details and to submit a report. It further appears from Annexure A that the Committee met on 30.7.90 and 27.11.90 and after going into the matter in details submitted the following report:- "The matter relating to regularisation of the services of the concerned employees in the University be done on the same line and in the same pattern as was done in respect of other non-teaching employees working in schemes/projects in terms of the decision of the Syndicate in this regard. All the incumbents be absorbed under regular establishment of the University after following the usual norms of appointment in such cases and they be pleased to suitable departments as was done in case of similar other cases. The posts of two Index Computers and one photographer be transferred to the Central Pool and if necessary be redesignated". 21. It appears from paragraph (b) of the Report that the Committee reported that all the incumbents be absorbed under Regular Establishment of the University after following norms of appointment in such cases and they be placed to suitable departments as was done in case of similar other cases. 22. 21. It appears from paragraph (b) of the Report that the Committee reported that all the incumbents be absorbed under Regular Establishment of the University after following norms of appointment in such cases and they be placed to suitable departments as was done in case of similar other cases. 22. The University affirmed the said affidavit-in-opposition on 2nd day of March, 1992 and today is 15th of December, 1995, but unfortunately, during this long period, Syndicate could not find any time to take any decision in the matter of absorbing and regularising the appointment of the writ petitioners. 23. Under these circumstances, the writ petitioners are completely at the mercy of the employer i.e. the University Authorities, why the situation has reached such a stage? Why even after working for such a long period the petitioners do not have job security? Why even an affidavit was affirmed as far back as on 2nd March, 1992, the appropriate authorities failed to take any concrete decision in the matter? The answer of this question is readily available from the Supreme Court decision (Jacob M. Puchuparambil vs. Kerala Water Authority) reported in AIR 1990 SC 2228 . In paragraph 9 of the said Report, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "India is developing country. It has a vast surplus labour market. Large-scale un-employment 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 the 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. Employers have betrayed an increasing tendency to employ temporary hands even no 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. One such device adopted is to get the work done through contract labour. It is in this backdrop that we must consider the request for regularisation in service." 24. As stated earlier in this judgment, that due to lack of job security the writ petitioners are working absolutely at the mercy of the concerned authorities and at any point of time, they can be thrown out of service. It is in this backdrop that we must consider the request for regularisation in service." 24. As stated earlier in this judgment, that due to lack of job security the writ petitioners are working absolutely at the mercy of the concerned authorities and at any point of time, they can be thrown out of service. In Jacob's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the Report, inter alia, observed as follows:- "But once the appointments continued for long, the services had to be regularised if the incumbent possessed the requisite qualifications as was done by sub-rule (e). Such an approach alone would be consistent with the constitutional philosophy adverted to earlier. Even otherwise, the rule must be so interpreted, if the language of the rule permits, as will advance this philosophy of the Constitution. If the rule is so interpreted it seems clear to us that employees who have been working on the establishment since long, and who possess the requisite qualifications for the job as obtaining on the date of their employment must be allowed to continue on their jobs and their services should be regularised. 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 which has settled down and accommodated its needs to the emoluments received by the bread 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 the incumbent may rendered 'age barred' for securing a job elsewhere. It is indeed unfair to use him, generate hope and a feeling of security in him attune his family to live within his earnings and then suddenly to throw him out of job. Such behaviour would be 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." 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Piara Singh and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 . Such behaviour would be 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." 25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Piara Singh and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130 . In paragraph 25 of the Report, inter alia, observed as follows:- "If for any reason, an Ad hoc or temporary employee is continuing for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State........................... If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell-say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services." 26. It is not the case of the University that the petitioners are not qualified according to the rules. No where such statement has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the University, it is not the case of the University that the service record of the writ petitioners are not satisfactory. Now such statement has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition. It is not the case of the University that the appointments of the writ petitioners run counter to the reservation policy of the State. Nowhere such statement has been made in the affidavit-in-opposition. 27. The fact remains that the writ petitioners continued for a fairly long spell-more than ten years therefore, a presumption in there that there is regular need for their services. 28. In Satyanarayan Sharma and Others vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and Others reported in (1990) SCC 163, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4 of the said Report, inter alia, observed as follows:- "The principles of regularisation of daily rated workmen and payment to him of the pay equal to that of a regular workman arises only when the daily rated workman is doing the same work as the regular workman and there being a vacancy available for him, he is not observed against it or not even paid the equal pay for the period during which the same word is taken from him". 29. 29. It appears from paragraph 16 of the writ petition wherein the decision of Syndicate has been quoted that for many years, permanent posts are lying vacant. 30. Mrs. Ruma Pal, J. of this High Court in Lakshmi Narayan Ghosh vs. The State of West Bengal & Others reported in (1993) 1 CHN 382 in paragraph 23 of the Report observed, after considering large number of cases, as follows:- "There has been a veritable flood of cases relating to the regularisation of employees in different services. The cases cited by the petitioner are a representative trickle of this flood. Upon a consideration of the authorities cited it appears that there are two broad streams of classes. In the first stream are the cases which raise the question whether the employee concerned appointed initially on the basis of any extraneous reason or not or as to whether the appointment is made by ignoring the regular procedure provided for recruitment under a pretended need. Extraneous reasons would include the appointment of an employee as a faveur or to accommodate some one. This has been characterised by the Supreme Court as an abuse of power which is unpardonable. In such cases the Supreme Court has directed that the Court should be reluctant to grant any indulgence (See: Karnataka State Private College stop-gap Lecturers' Association vs. The State of Karnataka 1992 (2) SCC 29 : 1992 Lab. IC 575: 1992(1) SLR 643). The second stream relates to those employees who were genuinely appointed due to the exigency of service. In such cases the Courts have directed regularisation subject to the fulfilment of three pre-conditions; namely:- (a) The existence of a substantive post against which the employee concerned has served. (See: All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teacher's Association VB. State of Manipur (supra): Aktar Hamid Sheikh vs. D.I. of Schools (supra) and Bakul Rej vs. State of West Bengal (supra), (b) The employee must be otherwise qualified to be appointed to the post (See J. M. Puthuparambil vs. Kerala Water Authority (supra) and (c) The employee must have served continuously in the post against which regularisation is asked for a reasonably long period (See Manik Chandra Sarkar vs. State of West Bengal) (supra). Judicial Precedent also shows that the Courts have not taken happily to the refusal on the part of the State to regularise the post of an employee who has fulfilled all these preconditions merely on some technical plea; (See: Aktar Hamid Shaikh vs. D.I. of Schools (SF) (supra)". 31. It is now evident that the writ petitioners were genuinely appointed after observing all the formalities and maintaining the Rules. Therefore, the cases of the writ petitioners come under the second stream as observed by the learned Judge in the above quotation. The respondents referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in AIR 1995 SC 962 : The attention of this Court was drawn to paragraph 7 of the said Report. Paragraph 7 of the said Report reads as follows:- "Nor the claim of the appellant, that she having worked as Lecturer without break for nine years on the date the advertisement was issued she should be deemed to have been regularised appears to be well founded. Eligibility and continuous working for howsoever long period should not be permitted to over-reach the law. Requirement of rules of selection through Commission cannot be substituted by humane consideration. Law must take its course. Consequently the appellant was not entitled to claim that she should have been deemed 0 to have been regularised as she had been working without break for nine years". 32. It has already been mentioned hereinabove in this judgment that the writ petitioners made an application consequent upon an advertisement made in the newspaper. On their application the Selection Committee was constituted by the University and the Selection Committee selected the writ petitioners and after such selection, the appropriate Authorities applied their mind and after finding the writ petitioners were eligible persons and having merit appointed the persons in their respective posts and all the writ petitioners have already put in more than ten years of service. It is also a fact as appears from paragraph 16 of the writ petition that there• are vacancies in the Calcutta University where the writ petitioners can be absorbed. 33. Under these facts and circumstances of this case and also the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the decision cited on behalf of the Calcutta University has no manner of application in the instant case. 33. Under these facts and circumstances of this case and also the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, the decision cited on behalf of the Calcutta University has no manner of application in the instant case. In this connection, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Regional Manager vs. Pawan Kumar reported in AIR 1976 SC 1766 may be referred to. At page 1769 of the Report, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed as follows:- "It is the rule deducible from the application of law of the facts and circumstances of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon the facts which may appear to be similar. One of additional or different facts can make a world or difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts". 34. The facts and circumstances involved in Dr. Arundhuti's case (supra) are different from those involved in case at hand. Therefore Dr. Arundhuti's case (supra) has no manner of application in the case at hand. 35. On behalf of the writ petitioners, the attention of this Court was drawn to case of Union of India vs. Dinesh Kumar Saxena and Others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1565 . In paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said Report, it was observed inter alia, as follows:- "In all these cases work of a permanent or semi-permanent nature existed in the Government Departments concerned which was got done through casual employees at lower or fixed salaries. The very fact that these casual employees had continuously worked in the concerned department for long periods like 8 to 10 years in each of the department on a permanent long-term basis which, the Court held, should be done through regulars. In these circumstances, this Court directed either regularisation of daily-rated workers or preparation of a scheme for the regularisation of these workers in the concerned department. In the present case, however, the additional work which is available is periodic in nature, available only at the end of each decennial when census operations are carried out. The additional work lasts for a period of about 2 or 3 years. Hence additional hands are required only for this periodical increase in work and while the work subsists. In the present case, however, the additional work which is available is periodic in nature, available only at the end of each decennial when census operations are carried out. The additional work lasts for a period of about 2 or 3 years. Hence additional hands are required only for this periodical increase in work and while the work subsists. They are, therefore, engaged for a fixed period (during which the additional work exists) and they are paid a fixed salary. It is difficult to see how such employees can be regularised since there is no regular work available in the department for them. 36. This Court has not directed regularisation of employees if work is not available for them. Thus, in the case of Director, Institute of Management Development. U.P. vs. Pushpa Srivastava (Smt.) (1992)4 SCC 33 : 1992 AIR SCW 2436, the appointment of the respondent was purely contractual and on an ad hoc basis on a consolidated pay for a fixed period. The period of contract was extended for one year and thereafter the post was abolished. This Court held that looking to the nature of appointment, since the contractual period had expired, the respondent had no right to continue. 37. In the case of Sandeep Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 525 : 1992 AIR SCW 353, daily-rated Junior Engineer were employed by the City Board, Ghaziabad in a temporary project known as the Slum Clearance Project. The Project was financed partly by the State of Uttar Pradesh and partly by the World Bank funds. These Junior Engineers were employed on a daily-rated basis. This Court held that the scheme under which these petitioners were working was of a very specify nature. The work was not permanent in character. Since the project was for a particular purpose, it was not possible to direct that the petitioners may be regularised in service. The Court, however, clarified that the petitioners were entitled to regularisation of their services by recruitment through the State Public Service Commission for vacancies other than those on which they were employed. It directed that as and when such vacancies arise and are duly notified, the claim of the petitioners for appointment to such vacancies should be considered subject to their satisfying the requisite qualifications prescribed therefor under the rules. It directed that as and when such vacancies arise and are duly notified, the claim of the petitioners for appointment to such vacancies should be considered subject to their satisfying the requisite qualifications prescribed therefor under the rules. This Court further observed that it was open to the State Public Service Commission to consider giving any weightage to the services rendered by these employees but the Court declined to give any direction, in this regard. The Court further said that continuity of service of the petitioners may be taken into account for overcoming the age bar. 38. It is not the case of the University that due to periodic increase of the volume of work the writ petitioners were appointed. From the affidavit-in-opposition, it is absolutely clear that after retention of the post till 31.5.85, the State Government did not extend retention of those posts, but still then, the University felt it necessary to utilise the Jobs of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners services were obtained by the Calcutta University for their own necessity. Even after all these, if the writ petitioners are not made permanent then what could be said to be exploitation? It is fact that the University paid their salaries even when there was no extension by the State of West Bengal. The University did not do it as a matter of grace or charity. The University was in need of the services of the writ petitioners and they are still in need. As stated earlier though affidavit-in-opposition was affirmed as far back as on 2nd March, 1992 wherein it was stated that the matter was under consideration of the Syndicate, till today i.e. 15th November, 1995, the Syndicate could not find it necessary to take a final decision in the matter. If it is not a fact of exploitation what else could it be said? 39. Article 41 of the Constitution lays down that the State shall, within limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective provisions for securing the right to work, to education and the public assistance in case of unemployment old age, sickness and disablement and in other cases or undeserved want. As stated earlier, even in absence of any continuation order by the State Government, University went on paying salaries to the writ petitioners. As stated earlier, even in absence of any continuation order by the State Government, University went on paying salaries to the writ petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be the case of the respondents that it is not possible within the limits of its economic capacity to ensure job security of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners referred to a Supreme Court's decision in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Manubhai Pragati Vashi & Others reported in JT 1995 (6) SC 119. In paragraph 14 of the said Report, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "A plea was taken in the High Court that the petitioner has no right to seek a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India basing his relief on a directive principle contained in the Constitution. The High Court, rightly in our opinion, repelled this plea relying on the decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Umed Ram Sharma AIR 1986 SC 847 . The High Court referred to the dictum laid down in the aforesaid decision to the effect (a) the Court can in a fit case direct the executive to carry out the directive principles of the Constitution, and (b) when there is inaction or slow action by the executive the judiciary must intervene. We have no doubt that the above conclusion of the Court below is also justified." 40. From the above quoted observation, it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court holding that the petitioner has right to seek a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief on a directive principle contained in the Constitution. 41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in AIR 1987 SC 2049 allowed the writ petition partly and directed as follows:- I "The petitioners shall be fixed in the same pay scale as that of respondent Nos. 2 to 6. II The pay of each of the petitioners shall be fixed having regard to the length of service with effect from the date of his initial appointment by ignoring the break in service arising in the context of the fact that the initial appointment orders were for 6 months and fresh appointment orders were issued after giving a break of a day or two. III The fixation shall be made as per the general principles adopted whenever pay revisions are made. In case upward revision has been effected in respect of the supervision in the regular cadre such revision should be taken into account in refixing the pay of the petitioners. IV The amount representing the difference in pay of the petitioners computed as per the present order shall be paid to each petitioner preferably latest by Mahatma Gandhiji's birth day which falls on 2nd October, 1987 or latest by November 1, 1987. The petitioners will be entitled to increments in the pay-scale in accordance with law notwithstanding the break in service that might have been given. V We hope and trust that the State of Haryana will not show displeasure at the petitioners who have approached this Court in order to vindicate their right to claim equal pay and that service of no petitioner would be terminated except on reaching the age of superannuation or by way of appropriate disciplinary action or on abandonment of the Scheme. For the sake of abundant caution we direct accordingly. VI Fresh appointment orders will have to be issued reappointing the petitioners who have continued in service on the expiry of the six months period from time to time in order to give effect to the direction contained in clause V hereinabove. VII In case the amounts of difference in pay cannot be computed within the time-limit granted by this order, provisional and approximate calculations should be made and payment should be made on such basis subject to final adjustment within the time granted. The petitioner shall be paid the cost of the writ petition quantified at Rs. 5,000/-." Because it was found that though the writ petitioners were working against a scheme which was temporary and though the writ petitioners were not entitled to be regularised yet, since they were discharging the equal work, they were entitled to equal pay and other benefits. 42. This Court in C.O. No. 1093(W) of 1993 by a judgment and order dated 7.12.95 followed the two decisions of the learned Division Bench reported in (1991) 2 CHN 355 (The District School Board, 24 Parganas (North & South) and others vs. Dukhiram Sardar & Others) and 1994 (3) SLR 769 (Ashoke Biswas vs. State of West Bengal). 42. This Court in C.O. No. 1093(W) of 1993 by a judgment and order dated 7.12.95 followed the two decisions of the learned Division Bench reported in (1991) 2 CHN 355 (The District School Board, 24 Parganas (North & South) and others vs. Dukhiram Sardar & Others) and 1994 (3) SLR 769 (Ashoke Biswas vs. State of West Bengal). Both these decisions were rendered by the two learned Division Benches of this High Court regularising and/or ordering absorption of the employees in the service on point of social justice. This Court after referring to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babita Prasad & Others vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 268 came to the conclusion that long years of service also creates equity in favour of the employees and as stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court equity reforms and moderates the rigour and hardness of law. 43. In Hansbury and Maudsley's Modern Equity, Eleventh Edition at page 753, it was stated as follows:- "Thus, it is common to speak that the equities of estoppel, of rescission, of rectification of undue influence, of consultation of mortgages; to which may now be added the equity arising from the principles that he who takes the benefit must accept the burden, and the list is not exclusive". 44. Following the aforesaid decision of this Court, this Court holds that some equities in favour of the writ petitioners have been created due to long spell of service rendered by the petitioners and since University took the benefit of services of the writ petitioners therefore University must accept the burden of ensuring the security of the writ petitioners. 45. In this context, reference may be made to a decision rendered by Justice B. L. Hansria in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in JT 1995 (8) SC 65. The relevant paragraph is paragraph 23. The relevant lines of the said paragraph 23 reads as follows: "It deserves to be pointed out that the mere fact that there is no provision parallel to Art. 142 relating to the High Courts, can be no ground to think that they have not to do complete justice and if moulding of relief would do complete justice between the parties, the same cannot be ordered. The absence of the provisions like Art.142 is not material, according to me". 46. The absence of the provisions like Art.142 is not material, according to me". 46. It may be worthwhile also to refer to paragraph 26 of the said report. Paragraph 26 of the said Report reads as follows:- "I had expressed my unhappiness qua the first facet of the case, as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court in paras 20 and 21 of Krishna Chandra vs. Union of India, AIR 1992 Ori. 261 (FB), by asking who the power of doing complete justice has been denied to the High Court? I fell happy that I have been able to state as a Judge of the Apex Court that the High Courts too are to do complete justice. This is also the result of what has been held in the leading judgment." 47. In the facts and circumstances, stated hereinabove, this Court directs the respondents to declare the writ petitioners as permanent employees of the Calcutta University forthwith and to extend the benefits of the permanent employees to the writ petitioners with effect from the date of joining of the writ petitioners in the Calcutta University and also to extend the benefits of the revised corresponding pay scales to the writ petitioners with effect from 1st, January, 1986. 48. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, particularly long inaction of the respondents, the Respondents are to pay cost of Rs. 3,400/- and that should be deposited with the Registrar, Appellate Side Calcutta High Court within two weeks from the date of communication of this order. 49. On behalf of the Calcutta University, it was pointed' out that the appropriate authorities to implement the order is Syndicate of the University, which is now not existing. It will be constituted on 22nd December, 1995 and under these circumstances, the University prayed for stay of operation of the order for at least one month. This court is not unaware of the Extraordinary power of the Vice-Chancellor under s. 9(6) of the Calcutta University Act, 1979. In many cases, the Vice-Chancellor of the University exercised such power in case of emergency. 50. In view of this, the prayer for the University is rejected. The prayer made on behalf of the University to stay the order relating to deposit of cost is also refused on the same ground. In many cases, the Vice-Chancellor of the University exercised such power in case of emergency. 50. In view of this, the prayer for the University is rejected. The prayer made on behalf of the University to stay the order relating to deposit of cost is also refused on the same ground. The Learned Advocate for the petitioners as also the University are given liberty to take the gist of the order and to communicate the same. Application allowed.