High Court rejects belated regularisation claim of long-serving contingency employee, petition dismissed

A Single Judge bench of Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari heard a writ petition challenging the respondents’ refusal to regularise the petitioner’s service and to grant consequential pay and arrears; the petitioner sought regular pay scale and increments from the date of initial appointment, relying on Government memos of 1990 and 1992 and earlier administrative directions.

The Court held that the petitioner’s claim suffered from delay and laches and that his seniority and entitlements could be assessed only from the date of regularisation in 2005. The Court relied on settled precedents limiting belated service claims and emphasised that relief in such cases was permissible only in narrow circumstances such as continuing wrongs which did not disturb third-party rights. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition." The Court further noted observations in Umadevi that regularisation of irregular appointments required careful application of principles where posts were not duly sanctioned: "There may be cases where irregular appointments ... of duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant posts might have been made and the employees have continued to work for ten years or more..." and concluded the petition was without merit and dismissed.

Background: The petitioner, employed initially as a driver and later as a workshop labourer, alleged initial appointment on 4.8.1986 and irregular payment from project funds at Rs.450–500 per month. He relied on administrative memos dated 9.1.1990 and 15.12.1992 and contended that similarly placed employees had been regularised earlier and granted regular pay scales. Though a Screening Committee recommended regular pay scale in 1990, the Principal stayed implementation; later orders dated 1.9.1993 regularised some employees but not the petitioner. The Directorate directed initiation of proceedings for regular pay scale in 2003 and the petitioner’s service was ultimately regularised on 23.4.2005 in contingency service with a probationary period, and a higher pay scale was granted on 19.9.2005.

The petitioner argued deprivation of benefits by inaction and sought pay scale fixation from the initial appointment date with arrears. The State responded that there was no sanctioned post of Driver earlier, that the petitioner’s remuneration was project-funded, and that regularisation occurred in 2005; the State pleaded delay and laches, relying on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and other authorities. The Court examined binding precedents including Tarsem Singh (delay and laches principle), State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (regularisation principles), Dhyan Singh (ad-hoc/ scheme-based service not equating to regular employment) and North West Railway v. Chanda Devi (entitlements governed by statute/rules). The Court found it unclear by what method the petitioner was initially appointed and held that seniority could be ascertained only from the date of regular employment. Applying the cited precedents and considering the long delay of over 15 years, the Court dismissed the petition. No interim relief was granted; the petitioner’s entitlement remained as per the 2005 regularisation and the petition was dismissed.

Case Details: Case No.: WPS No. 1059 of 2013 Case Title: Kamal Singh Mesharam v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tanmay Thomas, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Deputy Government Advocate