Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 868 (CAL)

In Re: Funia Done v. .

2012-09-14

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, NISHITA MHATRE

body2012
Judgment 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal in OA No.1587 of 2009. The Petitioner was employed as a sweeper from 25th August, 1990. There is no dispute that she was employed in a post which was sanctioned. The Petitioner has continued to work on a casual basis for the last 22 years. However, despite certain Government Orders, she has not been made permanent. 2. It appears that several such casual employees had approached this Court by preferring C.O. No.7069 (W) of 1992. By an order dated 11th March, 1994 a learned Single Judge of this Court had considered the various Government Orders regarding regularising casual employees in service and had directed them to be absorbed in service depending on the nature of work that they had performed from their respective dates of appointment. 3. The Government Order No.1700 dated 3rd August, 1979 stipulates that the casual workers who have been engaged in work of a perennial nature for a continuous period of more than three years should be absorbed in the regular establishment on a temporary basis in existing vacancies. If suitable vacancies are not available, necessary steps are to be taken by the Authority to create the requisite number of posts. 4. Continuous period has also been defined to mean 240 days of work in each calendar year of service for three consecutive years. The “perennial type of work” means a job which is of a permanent nature. 5. The Petitioner is employed as a Group-‘D’ sweeper. This work is, no doubt, of a perennial nature. She has been continuously working for 22 years and has completed 240 days in service for three consecutive years. In these circumstances, the State ought to have confirmed her in service considering the State’s Order of 1990. 6. In the case of State of Karnataka and Others VS. M. L. Kesari, reported in AIR 2010 SC 2587 , the Supreme Court has observed after considering the decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 that when a person works uninterruptedly for ten years and more in service, the State ought to regularise the person in service if the initial employment has been made in accordance with law. 7. There is no material on record to indicate that the Petitioner had not been recruited in accordance with law. Umadevi, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806 that when a person works uninterruptedly for ten years and more in service, the State ought to regularise the person in service if the initial employment has been made in accordance with law. 7. There is no material on record to indicate that the Petitioner had not been recruited in accordance with law. The Government Orders issued by the State of West Bengal, in fact, help the Petitioner and the State ought to have regularised her in service many years ago. In any event considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the State must regularise the Petitioner in service. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. 9. The Respondents shall regularise the Petitioner in service within eight weeks from today. The past service of the Petitioner will be counted for the purpose of paying her pension and all other retiral benefits. However, she will not be entitled to any service benefits for this period. However all consequential benefits from the date she is regularised in service shall be paid to her. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.