Regularization of Casual Workers: Supreme Court Ruling in Om Prakash Banerjee vs. State of West Bengal

The case of Om Prakash Banerjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. is a landmark judgment addressing the rights of casual workers and the principle of equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court adjudicated on whether an employee who had worked for over 30 years should be granted regularization in service, particularly when similarly placed employees had been absorbed.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Om Prakash Banerjee, had been working as a casual worker in the Municipality since 1991. Despite multiple government orders allowing for the regularization of workers engaged before 31 December 1991, the appellant’s employment status remained unregularized. Meanwhile, other similarly placed workers were absorbed into permanent positions.

Chronology of Events

• 18 April 1991: Appellant was appointed as a casual worker on daily wages.
• 14 June 1996: Appointed on probation for six months at a consolidated pay.
• 22 January 1997: Government order allowed for the absorption of casual workers engaged before 31 December 1991.
• 1999: Appellant and others filed a writ petition for regularization.
• 9 March 2000: Municipality appointed the appellant as a clerk with effect from February 2000.
• 20 June 2000: High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition but directed consideration of his case for absorption.
• 2003-2005: 84 other employees were regularized, but the appellant was not.
• 2010: Appellant’s allowances and increments were stopped, leading to another writ petition.
• 2012: The municipality refused to consider the appellant for regularization.
• 2017: Appellant filed another writ petition, which was dismissed.
• 2018: Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal.
• 2019: High Court again dismissed the appellant’s case.
• 2023: Supreme Court heard the appeal.

Arguments Presented

Arguments by the Petitioner (Om Prakash Banerjee)

• The appellant argued that he had been working continuously since 1991 and was eligible for absorption under multiple government orders.
• He pointed out that other similarly placed employees had been regularized, making his exclusion arbitrary and discriminatory.
• He contended that his service book itself mentioned his absorption and that the government’s refusal to regularize him violated the principles of equality under Article 14.
• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in U.P. SEB vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey, where regularization was granted in similar circumstances.
• He also emphasized that he had retired in 2021 after serving for 30 years without receiving the benefits of regularization.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of West Bengal)

• The state argued that the appellant’s claim was time-barred as he had approached the court after an inordinate delay.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, which held that casual employees do not have a fundamental right to regularization.
• The respondents stated that circulars allowing regularization had been declared unconstitutional by the High Court in 2009.
• They contended that representations made by the appellant did not extend the limitation period for filing his case.

Key Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court made the following crucial observations:

• “This is a case of gross violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
• The court found that the appellant had been unfairly denied regularization while his juniors and similarly placed employees had been absorbed.
• The Umadevi judgment was not applicable in this case, as the appellant’s claim was based on a legal entitlement rather than mere continuation in service.
• “The Respondents had submitted before the High Court that resolutions for the appellant’s absorption were already in place.”
• The government had failed to implement its own orders regarding the absorption of casual workers.
• The appellant’s claim for regularization was backed by official documents and government resolutions.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Om Prakash Banerjee and held that:

• The High Court had erred in dismissing the case.
• The appellant was entitled to regularization from 1991.
• He was entitled to receive back wages and benefits along with an interest of 10%.
• The High Court’s dismissal order was set aside.

Implications of the Judgment

• This ruling reinforces the rights of long-serving casual workers to be considered for regularization.
• It ensures that government orders for absorption cannot be selectively applied.
• The judgment clarifies that employees cannot be denied benefits arbitrarily when their peers have received them.
• It establishes that the principles of fairness and equality must be upheld in employment matters.

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial precedent in labor law, affirming that the denial of regularization despite explicit government policies and court directives constitutes a violation of fundamental rights.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/employment-fraud-and-caste-certificate-misuse-supreme-court-ruling-on-bhubaneswar-development-authority-vs-madhumita-das/

Petitioner Name: Om Prakash Banerjee.
Respondent Name: State of West Bengal & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Sanjay Karol.
Place Of Incident: West Bengal, India.
Judgment Date: 19-05-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: om-prakash-banerjee-vs-state-of-west-bengal-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-19-05-2023.pdf