Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 17 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioners – Somnath Giri and two other dock pilots (collectively "the petitioners"); Respondents – Union of India, Kolkata Port Trust (KPT) and other officials (Nos. 3 to 7).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Constitutional writ petition (WPA No. 24866 of 2025) seeking a mandamus directing regularisation of the petitioners as permanent Dock Pilots at Shyama Prasad Mookherjee Port, Haldia Dock Complex.
  • Background:
  • Petitioners were initially engaged on an ad‑hoc contractual basis under the Marine Operations Division of Haldia Dock Complex: Petitioner 1 on 23 Feb 2012 (3‑year contract), Petitioners 2 and 3 on 29 May 2014.
  • All obtained Marine Department competency certificates (Petitioner 1 – 23 Jul 2013; Petitioners 2 & 3 – 3 Aug 2015) and were later upgraded to contractual Dock Pilots with higher pay.
  • Contracts were successively renewed, most recently extended to 31 Mar 2028 by Office Memo dated 25 Mar 2025 for all three.
  • Remuneration: initially ₹35,000, later ₹83,100 per month (plus operational allowances of ₹89,093 drawn for Sep 2025), whereas regular Dock Pilots receive ₹150,000‑₹200,000.
  • The petitioners made multiple representations for regularisation (applications dated 15 Nov 2017, 27 Nov 2017, 5 Mar 2020, 8 Feb 2024, 23 Dec 2024, 10 Oct 2025) and highlighted advertisements DR/25/17 (24 Sep 2025) and DR/2026/06 (27 Feb 2026) for apprentice Dock Pilot recruitment.
  • They received certificates of appreciation for “Outstanding Performance” in 2023 (Petitioner 3) and 2025 (Petitioner 1).
  • Legal Contentions:
  • Petitioners argued that under the Kolkata Port Trust (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2013, ad‑hoc appointments must be regularised as soon as possible, and that their continuous service, qualifications (B.Sc. Nautical Science), and performance entitled them to permanent posts.
  • Respondents contended that the engagements were purely contractual, created to overcome a 15‑year embargo imposed by the Ministry of Shipping on direct recruitment of departmental officers; no sanctioned vacancy existed, and contractual pilots perform only operational duties, not the administrative functions of regular Dock Pilots.
  • Respondents cited statutory provisions, the terms of each contract (fixed tenure, one‑month notice, no right to post), and case law (Babu Parasu Kaikadi, Medley Pharmaceuticals, Ranjit Kumar Neog, Ram Pravesh Singh) to argue no right to regularisation.
  • Petitioners relied on Supreme Court precedents (Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, Jaggo v. Union of India, Bhola Nath v. State of Jharkhand, Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance v. Rambha Devi) asserting a right to absorption after prolonged contractual service.
  • The Court examined the distinction between the three‑judge decision in Dayanand (which emphasized the need for regularisation only when appointments are made against sanctioned posts) and the two‑judge decision in Bhola Nath (held per incuriam by respondents).

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners’ contractual engagements did not create a legal right to regularisation or parity with departmental Dock Pilots.
  • No order as to costs was made; the petition was dismissed outright.
  • On humanitarian grounds, the Court directed the Respondent authorities to consider the petitioners for selection to regular Dock Pilot vacancies when such vacancies arise, in accordance with law.

Topics: Regularisation of Contractual Employees; Port Operations Employment