OM PRAKASH BANERJEE versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 427 · Decided: 19-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 427 : 2023 INSC 567
427
OM PRAKASH BANERJEE
v.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4210 of 2023)
MAY 19, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Service Law – Regularisation of service – Denial of – Held:
Non-regularisation of the services of the appellant is a violation of
the fundamental rights of equality before law and equality of
opportunity in matters relating to employment under the State, as
enshrined u/Articles 14 and 16(1) – The principles of natural justice,
too, demand that the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the
regularisation of services when his similarly placed fellow employees
were granted the said benefit – Appellant entitled to receive back
wages and benefits from 1991 with 10% interest – Judgment of the
High Court set aside – Constitution of India – Articles 14, 16 –
Principles of Natural Justice.
Secretary, State of Karnataka vs Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC
1 : [2006] 3 SCR 953 – held inapplicable.
UP SEB vs Pooran Chandra Pandey (2007) 11 SCC
92 : [2007] 10 SCR 920 – relied on.
Surjeet Singh Sahni vs State of U.P. & Ors. 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 249; Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union
(2011) 4 SCC 200: [2011] 4 SCR 509 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 3 SCR 953
held inapplicable
Para 16
[2007] 10 SCR 920
relied on
Para 16
[2011] 4 SCR 509
referred to
Para 20
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4210
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2019 of the High Court
at Calcutta in CAN No.10038 of 2018 in MAT No.611 of 2018.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
428
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
Surajdipta Seth, Ajit Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Astha Sharma, Srisatya Mohanty, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms.
Mantika Haryani, Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. Ripul
Swati Kumari, Bhanu Mishra, Devvrat Singh, Ms. Muskan Surana,
Sameer Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KRISHNA MURARI, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and final
order dated 10.12.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’) in MAT No. 611 of
2018 and CAN No. 10038/2018filed by the Appellant herein against the
order dated 04.05.2018 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in
Writ Petition No. 31399 (W) of 2017, seeking regularisation of service.
3. The High Court dismissed MAT No. 611 of 2018 and CAN
No. 10038/2018 filed by the Appellant herein.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. The Appellant in the present case was a casual worker in
Respondent No.3- Municipality, since 1991. The brief facts giving rise
to the present appeal are that on 18.04.1991, the Appellant herein was
appointed by Respondent No.3- Municipality as a casual worker @ Rs.25/
- on a daily wage basis, to assist the Engineering Section of the Municipal
Office. Prior to this, he had worked as an enumerator in the Census of
1981 and 1991, respectively. On 14.06.1996, the Appellant was appointed
for 6 months on probation on a consolidated pay of Rs.1000/- per month.
On 22.01.1997, Director of Local Bodies, West Bengal, issued a letter,
wherein it was mentioned that as per order dated 13.03.1996, casual
workers who were engaged by different Urban Local Bodies up to
31.12.1991 and were still continuing as such will be eligible for absorption
against sanctioned and vacant Group “C” and “D” categories of post
depending upon their eligibility within the purview of approved staff pattern
of the respective Urban Local Bodies and as per the Board of the
Councillors, subject to the fulfilment of terms and conditions. However,
such absorption never actually happened.
5. In 1999, the Appellant herein along with 16 other casual workers
of Respondent No. 3- Municipality filed Writ Petition No. 19555 (W) of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
429
1999 before the High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus directing
Respondent No. 3- Municipality herein to regularise and/or absorb in
permanent vacancies in which they were discharging their duties as
casual workers. On 09.03.2000, an office order was issued by Respondent
No.- 3 Municipality stating that in pursuance of his satisfactory
performance since last 3 years, he is being appointed in the post of Clerk
in the dispatch section in the scale of Rs. 3350-6325/- plus usual admissible
allowances with retrospective effect from February, 2000. On 20.06.2000,
the High Court dismissed the aforementioned Writ Petition No. 19555
(W) of 1999. The relevant portion of the High Court’s 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.