Authority: Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair

Order Date: September 03, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellants – Andaman and Nicobar Rajya Karmachari Mahasangh (registered association) and its Secretary; Respondents – Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Medical Education and Research Society (the Society) and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Institute of Medical Science (ANIIMS).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil appeal (MAT/75/2024) against the judgment dated 12 November 2024 of the Single Judge, which had dismissed a writ petition seeking regularisation of contractual employees.
  • Background:
  • The Society, created under National Medical Commission guidelines, manages ANIIMS, a 550‑bed referral hospital serving the Union Territory.
  • From January to November 2015 the Society issued walk‑in‑interview and vacancy notices for contractual posts; 139 persons were engaged on short‑term contracts (renewable on mutual consent) without formal contracts being executed.
  • Two specialised staff nurses were later absorbed by ANIIMS, but the majority continued as contractual staff performing full‑time, permanent‑type duties.
  • In March 2020 the Society’s Executive Council approved creation of 425 posts (additional to 107 created in November 2014) and 5 administrative/accounting posts; a later communication dated 14 June 2024 confirmed a total of 705 + 5 posts to be created on a regular basis.
  • No recruitment rules had been framed or published for these posts, and the vacancy notice of December 2021 sought fresh contractual engagements for the same posts.
  • The appellants filed writ petition WPA/295/2021 challenging the vacancy notice, arguing that existing contractual employees performed duties identical to permanent staff and should be regularised.
  • The Single Judge rejected the prayer, relying on the Supreme Court’s Umadevi (2006) decision that contractual labels could bar regularisation.
  • Legal Submissions:
  • Appellants relied on a series of Supreme Court judgments (e.g., Sheo Narain Nagar, Vinod Kumar, Jaggo, Shripal, Velajagan, Dharam Singh, Bhola Nath, Mohammad Sagir, Sukhendu) that emphasise the nature of work over the label and direct regularisation where service is integral and long‑term.
  • Respondents argued that no regular recruitment rules existed, the posts were not yet sanctioned, and the engagement letters expressly denied any right to regularisation.

Final Outcome

  • The Division Bench (Justices Amrita Sinha and Biswaroop Chowdhury) set aside the Single Judge’s judgment.
  • The Court held that the contractual employees’ service is “integral, permanent and indispensable” and that the Umadevi bar does not apply where employees have rendered more than a decade of continuous service.
  • Respondents are directed to regularise or absorb the contractual employees in regular service with appropriate pay from their initial date of appointment, in line with the Supreme Court precedents cited.
  • The Court also ordered the respondents to conduct a regular selection process for the balance of the sanctioned vacancies (total 705 + 5 posts) within ninety (90) days of the communication of this judgment.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Court Judgment, Employment Regularisation, Healthcare Staffing