Smti. Augusta Kujur v. The Union Of India And ORS,

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTION WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY WP.CT/14/2025 SMTI. AUGUSTA KUJUR ... PETITIONER VS.

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Ms. Anjili Nag, Senior Advocate Ms. Sohini Biswas For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on : November 20, 2025 Judgment on : November 25, 2025 RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

1.

An order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Port Blair dated 29.01.2025 in Other Appeal No.

351/407/A&N/2017, is under challenge in the instant writ petition. 2.

The lis between the parties is with regard to the claim of the writ petitioner for regularization of her part time service on consolidated pay. The Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 has rejected the petitioner's prayer for regularization of her service.

3.

Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner has emphatically argued that the writ petitioner has been subjected to glaring discrimination insofar as the other

similarly circumstanced part time workers particularly, namely Pushpa Rani Biswas (Sasmath) and Manjula, have already been regularized by the respondent authority. Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the petitioner cannot be subjected to discrimination which infact stands out to be gross violation of her rights of equality protected under the Constitution. Mrs. Anjili Nag learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that after having been appointed on 19.03.2002 in the post of Craft Instructor (Music) on part time and consolidated pay basis, the petitioner has worked continuously without any break except during the technical breaks of summer vacation, for about a period of 23 years now. She submits that the petitioner is still in employment. With reference to relevant documents Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate has submitted that time and again the respondent has extended the petitioner's service and she has been discharging her duties unblemished and to the fullest satisfaction of the respondent authority, till date.

4.

Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has further submitted that long and interrupted service so far discharged by the writ petitioner tantamount to discharging permanent nature of work by her. According to the petitioner, the job to which she is engaged is of perennial nature which cannot be treated like any of temporary character requiring only temporary personnel to discharge the same. Instead, according to the petitioner, in a job which is permanent in nature, the petitioner cannot be continued as the temporary appointee for inordinate long period of time. To buttress her submission as above, Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate has relied on the decision of Rizwana Mubin - versus State of U.P. and others reported at Civil Appeal No. 12063 of 2025, arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 15111 of 2022 D/d. 19.09.2025.

5.

Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that it is the well settled proposition of law and the constitutional guarantee to a citizen of a country that he/she ought not to have been discriminated with other similarly circumstanced persons. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the two other part time Craft Instructors named above, who have been regularized at a later date by the respondent authority, were appointed through the same recruitment process initiated by the respondent authority in 2002. All of them have always been treated at par by the said respondent in the matter of their respective conditions of service.

Later on, however, the writ petitioner has been subjected to gross discrimination when the respondent regularized the services of the other two similarly circumstanced part time Craft Instructors (Music). Therefore, according to Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate, the petitioner is also entitled to the similar treatment of regularization of her service by the respondent authority. In support of her submissions she has referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ushaben Joshi - versus - Union of India and others reported at 2024 SCC Online SC 2277. In a case with similar factual background, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed for regularization of service of the applicant before the same, in the judgment of Sri. Nagendra S.G. & Ors - versus - Dr. K. C. Veeranna & Ors reported at Civil Appeal No.

5586 of 2024, arising out of SLP(C) No. 10123 of 2023, D/d 30.04.2024.

6.

Mrs. Anjili Nag learned Senior Advocate has further submitted with reference to the other judgment of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar & Ors. Etc. - versus - Union of India and Ors. reported at 2024(9) SCC 327 that, continuance of a part time and temporary post for an inordinate long period of time is not permissible under the law. She has referred to the judgment as above to submit that the Court has held that after a long period of time a post cannot be

maintained as a temporary one but should be treated as a permanent post, to engage only a regular employee therein. 7.

Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned Senior Advocate has therefore submitted that the present writ petition may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2025 and directing the respondent authority to regularize the petitioner's service.

8.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate who has represented the respondent Administration, has raised strong objection as to the contentions of prayer of the writ petitioner as discussed above. The principal ground of his objection is that the petitioner has never ventilated before the learned Tribunal about her grievance of disparity in treatment with the other similarly circumstanced temporary service holders. He has submitted that the writ petitioner was found ineligible and disqualified to appear in the recruitment process of 2015. That decision of the authority has been the subject matter of challenge by the petitioner before the Tribunal, which has been rejected by the same, vide the impugned order. Mr. Kumar has submitted that the petitioner should not have come up in this writ petition with fresh cause of action and submissions as those are not maintainable now before this Court.

9.

Mr. Kumar learned advocate has further submitted that the issue of regularization of the writ petitioner has already been considered by the learned Tribunal far back, in the year 2008. He says that vide an order dated 10.12.2008, the Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's prayer for regularization of service. He has further stated that the said order has never been challenged by the writ petitioner and the same has reached its finality. That the same now stands binding upon the parties. According to the respondents the

writ petitioner cannot now come up with the same prayer for the second time before the Court and that the prayer of the petitioner is barred by res-judicata and not maintainable. Therefore, according to him the Tribunal has rightfully set aside the petitioner's prayer in the original application with reference to the earlier order dated 10.12.2008.

10.

According to Mr. Kumar learned advocate, the writ petitioner is not eligible to seek parity with the other two co-workers, as mentioned above. As the reason therefor, he has elaborated that the said two persons have been regularized by virtue of the Court's order and to accord them similar treatment with the other part time workers, earlier regularized on the strength of the Court's order. That the cause of action as raised by the writ petitioner in the present case before the Tribunal is different from that in the cases of the other incumbents, as the writ petitioner has only challenged the recruitment process of 2015 and the decision of the authority declaring her as ineligible to take part in the same due to overage. 11.

Hence, Mr.

Rakesh Kumar, learned Advocate for the respondent seeks that the instant writ petition be dismissed and the order of the learned Tribunal dated 29.01.2025 be upheld. 12.

It is seen that the petitioner was appointed vide an order dated 19.03.2002 in a recruitment process pursuant to a notice of recruitment declaring a number of vacancies for the post of Craft Instructor. Therefore, the post to which the petitioner was appointed appears to be a sanctioned post. There is no dispute in this case that since after being appointed in the year 2002, the petitioner has been continuously and uninterruptedly working with the respondent till now. According to the respondent, the petitioner has taken part in the following recruitment processes which were done in the year 2009

and 2011 but unsuccessfully. Fact remains that the petitioner has still not been discontinued but allowed to continue as a part time employee on consolidated pay till date.

13.

After carefully perusing the judgments referred to on behalf of the writ petitioner the Court finds that a long standing part time employment in a sanctioned post is not what the law has provided for. In fact, by following the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) it can be stated that after a prolonged period of time a temporary post should be treated as permanent in nature. 14.

It should be proper to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Jaggo vs Union of India reported at 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, in which the Court has held as follows:

"25.

It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways:

 Misuse of "Temporary"

Labels:

Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labeled as "temporary" or "contractual,"

even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks.

 Arbitrary Termination:

Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case.

This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service.

 Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant.

 Using Outsourcing as a Shield:

Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another.

This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment.

 Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits:

Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades.

This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.

26. While the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) sought to curtail the practice of backdoor entries and ensure appointments adhered to constitutional principles, it is regrettable that its principles are often misinterpreted or misapplied to deny legitimate claims of long-serving employees. This judgment aimed to distinguish between "illegal" and "irregular" appointments. It categorically held that employees in irregular appointments, who were engaged in duly sanctioned posts and had

served continuously for more than ten years, should be considered for regularization as a onetime measure. However, the laudable intent of the judgment is being subverted when institutions rely on its dicta to indiscriminately reject the claims of employees, even in cases where their appointments are not illegal, but merely lack adherence to procedural formalities. Government departments often cite the judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to argue that no vested right to regularization exists for temporary employees, overlooking the judgment's explicit acknowledgment of cases where regularization is appropriate. This selective application distorts the judgment's spirit and purpose, effectively weaponizing it against employees who have rendered indispensable services over decades.". 15.

The writ petitioner's long and uninterrupted service as against a sanctioned post is an admitted fact in the instant case. A strong resistance has been put forth as to the petitioner's case on the ground that here the Tribunal has not dealt with the issue of regularization of the petitioner and it could not have done so because of the reason that the Tribunal has finally decided the said issue in negative, vide its order dated 10.12.2008. On perusal of the copy of the Original Application filed by the writ petitioner before Tribunal, it appears that the petitioner/applicant has prayed for the relief to treat her at par with other similarly situated part time Craft Instructors, though without specifying therein any names.

The said Original Application has been filed in the year 2017, whereas the other coworkers mentioned by her have been regularized in the year 2018, vide orders of the Tribunal/Court. Hence the Court finds it only natural and no infirmity or illegality that the writ petition has now relied on the instances of those co-workers, in this writ petition.

the petitioner, as well as those regularised before to them, there is no evidence on record to question the veracity of this fact. 16.

The writ petitioner's long, uninterrupted service has continued over two decades. She has discharged the duty which has been neither sporadic not project based, but permanent and integral to the daily functioning of the respondent's office. Her responsibilities are not casual or peripheral but typically of the nature of permanent and regular functions of the institution. There is no indication from the respondents that her performance was not satisfactory and required any improvement. Also, that even after the writ petitioner having been unsuccessful twice in the recruitment process (as per the respondents), she has not been terminated and allowed to continue in her post as the part time employee. The substantive reality of the writ petitioner's long, integral service cannot be overlooked.

Fairness, equity and the established judicial principles call for her regularisation. With reference to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Karnataka - versus - Umadevi reported at (2006) 4 SCC 1, it can be said that the writ petitioner who has been appointed through a lawful and duly instituted recruitment process and worked as a part time employee, for over two decades and still continuing, is eligible for being regularized in accordance with law. 17.

Considering all as discussed above, the Court in this case is inclined to find that the order of the learned Tribunal dated 29.01.2025 suffers from non application of the settled legal principles in case of the present writ petitioner. It appears that the Court has largely founded its judgment on the basis of the earlier judgment passed by the Tribunal, without considering the change in circumstance later on, due to regularization of the similarly circumstanced part time workers. The State and public employers should ensure that their classifications and employment practices are

based on rational, intelligible differentia aligned with constitutional principles. Any discrimination must be justified by relevant service conditions or legitimate objectives; arbitrary or unfair discrimination is subject to judicial review and liable to be set aside. Discriminatory treatment without such basis, especially when it affects livelihood or violates natural justice, would be unlawful if does not adhere to the principles of reasonableness or fairness. The State, as a model employer, must uphold fairness, high probity, and natural justice in its dealings with employees. Any arbitrary or unfair treatment, especially when it disregards employee livelihood or expectations, is contrary to constitutional principles and good governance.

The State, as a 'model employer,' must act fairly, reasonably, transparently, and without arbitrary discrimination, respecting the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16. While classification based on intelligible differentia is permissible, the State must avoid unfair or discriminatory treatment of similarly situated employees and ensure that its actions are guided by relevant considerations, fairness, and natural justice. In this case neither the State action is sustainable on the anvil of the said virtuous legal principles nor in the impugned order, the same have been adhered to. Hence, the obvious conclusion is that the impugned order/judgment of the Tribunal dated 29.01.2025, which is in conflict with the law, is liable to be set aside. 18.

For all the discussion as made above, the Court allows this writ petition No. WP.CT/14/2025 with the following directions : (i) The impugned judgment of the Tribunal in Original Application No. 351/407/A&N/2017 dated 29.01.2025 is set aside;

(ii) The respondent is directed to regularize the petitioner's service with immediate effect;

(iii) Notional effect shall be given from the date of appointment of the petitioner till the date of this judgment; (iv) Necessary order in this regard shall be passed by the respondent authority within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of copy of this order.

19.

The writ petition being No. WP.CT/14/2025 is thus allowed and disposed of.

20.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be granted to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.

(Lanusungkum Jamir, J.) (Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)