Authority: High Court at Calcutta, Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Order Date: 22nd June 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitions: WPA 18203/2015, WPA 19215/2015, WPA 19367/2015 (with IA No. CAN 3 of 2024), WPA 28597/2015, WPA 4419/2014, WPA 4420/2014, all filed between 2014 and 2015.
  • Parties: Petitioners – wards/legal heirs of deceased employees of North Bengal State Transport Corporation (NBSTC); Respondents – NBSTC and the State of West Bengal.
  • Core claim: Petitioners sought declaration that, as wards of deceased NBSTC employees who qualified under the “died‑in‑harness” compassionate scheme, they were entitled to regular appointment and regularisation of their existing contractual service.
  • Background: The deceased employees died while in service. Petitioners applied for compassionate appointments; the NBSTC Managing Director invited them for interviews (20‑21 Oct 2008). Successful candidates were appointed on a contractual basis for one‑year terms starting 10 Dec 2008, 17 Feb 2009, 19 Aug 2009 and 1 Sep 2009, with a consolidated remuneration of Rs 4,000.
  • Extensions: The contractual appointments were extended annually (order dated 23 Dec 2009) up to 2015. By 2014, NBSTC reported 339 such appointments (335 conductors, 4 drivers). Current consolidated remuneration had risen to Rs 13,500.
  • Interim order: A coordinate bench on 11 July 2016 granted an interim order that petitioners’ services not be disturbed until disposal of the writ petitions; petitioners continued to serve.
  • Government meeting: Affidavit filed by the State states that on 11 May 2007, a meeting (Additional Chief Secretary, Transport Dept., Managing Directors of CTC, CSTC, NBSTC, Joint Secretary and Assistant Secretary) decided to engage eligible wards on contractual basis in operational vacancies, subject to yearly renewal, after a selection committee assessed seniority, financial condition, age, aptitude, etc.
  • Legal submissions: Petitioners’ counsel cited Jaggo v. Union of India (2024 INSC 1034) and argued for equal pay for equal work. The State’s Additional Advocate General contended that appointments were purely contractual, no scheme existed, and regularisation could not be granted absent a sanctioned post.
  • Court’s analysis: The Court observed that appointments were made after a selection process and against operational vacancies that arose from the death of the deceased employees, who held sanctioned posts. Hence, the appointments were not illegal, only irregular. The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments (e.g., State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari) and noted that regularisation is permissible where appointments, though irregular, are not illegal and where employees perform integral functions.
  • The Court rejected the State’s reliance on cases that required appointments to be made against sanctioned posts or through formal schemes, emphasizing the distinction in facts and the need to prevent exploitation of long‑serving contractual workers.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petitions are allowed.
  • NBSTC is directed to regularise the petitioners in regular appointments from the date of filing of the writ petitions for the purpose of computing notional benefits.
  • Actual benefits (salary, emoluments) shall be paid to the petitioners from the date of this judgment (22 June 2026).
  • No order as to costs.
  • Parties may obtain a certified copy of the order upon compliance with requisite formalities.

Topics: Regularisation, Employment Law