BARATANG FOREST WORKERS UNION AND ANR vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
WPA/71/2025

BARATANG FOREST WORKER’S
UNION AND ANOTHER … PETITIONERS

VS.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

For the petitioners : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar
Ms. Vinita Devi

For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar

Heard and
Reserved on : August 28, 2026

Judgment delivered on : September 3, 2026

Judgment uploaded on : September 3, 2026


AMRITA SINHA, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been moved by a registered trade
Union represented by the petitioner No. 2, its President. The
workmen serving under the respondents are the members of the
Union.

2. The challenge in the instant writ petition lies in a very small
th
compass. By the order dated 12 January, 2021, the Conservator of
Forests (Headquarters) accorded approval to the appointment of 122
Mazdoors, appointed earlier on ad hoc basis, in various forest

2

division on regular basis in the pay band with grade pay with effect
st
from 21 May, 2015 and also regularized their period spent on ad
hoc basis.
3. Submission of the petitioners is that the authority ought to
have regularized the service of the workmen on and from their initial
date of engagement and not from any hypothetical date. The writ
petitioners submit that, the regularization had been made in line
with the direction passed by the learned Labour Tribunal in the
th
award dated 13 July, 2005 clearly mentioning that the benefit to
be provided to the workmen from the date of their initial
engagement.
4. According to the petitioners, the crucial date from which they
would be entitled to the benefit of regularization is the date of their
initial engagement. No other date, apart from the date of their initial
engagement, should be considered for providing the benefit to the
workmen.
5. It has been argued that the petitioners are fighting for the
right of their members since 2002 and the authority cannot deprive
the workmen of their legitimate dues on and from their initial date of
engagement.
6. It has been submitted that the workmen were engaged on
diverse dates starting from the year 1990 and after a prolonged legal

3

battle, the order of regularization has been passed in their favour.
The date of regularization has to be taken as the date of their initial
engagement. Giving benefit from a later date will manifest injustice
and deprive the workmen financially.
7. According to the petitioners, the date of regularization has
been erroneously mentioned. Prayer has been made to direct the
respondents to extend the benefit of regularization with effect from
the date of their initial engagement instead of the date as mentioned
th
in the order of regularization i.e. 25 May, 2015. Prayer has also
been made to direct the respondents to release all consequential
benefit to the members of the Union by taking into consideration
their initial date of engagement in compliance of the award dated
th
13 July, 2005.
8. Learned advocate representing the respondents opposes the
prayer of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the learned
th
Tribunal, in the award dated 13 July, 2005, did not decide upon
the date of regularization of the workmen. The matter of
regularization of the workmen was left open to be decided by the
respondent authority.

9. It has been contended that as no date was fixed by the
learned Tribunal from which the benefit of regularization could have

4

been passed, accordingly, the Court ought not to interfere with the
date of regularization as prescribed in the impugned order.
10. It has been submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench in
th
WP.CT/1497/2010 delivered judgment on 29 March, 2011 in the
matter of Mohan Kumar Das and Others vs. Union of India and
Others taking note of the fact that the issue of regularization of 136
Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRM) was left open by the learned Tribunal
for consideration of the administration. Regularization was directed
to be considered subject to availability of vacant posts and subject
to fulfillment of recruitment rules. As the workmen did not challenge
the award passed by the learned Tribunal and accepted the same,
accordingly, the Union cannot challenge the date of regularization at
such a delayed point of time.
11. It has been argued that the order of regularization was passed
st
in the year 2021 with effect from 21 May, 2015. The same has been
challenged by filing writ petition only in the year 2025, that is after
a very long period of time. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed
only on the ground of delay.
12. It has been contended that most of the workmen do not fulfill
the requisite qualification for engagement. The authority adopted a
lenient stand and allowed regularization of the workmen even

5

though they were not eligible for the same. The workmen ought not
to make any further prayer for altering their date of regularization.
13. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. In reply to the allegation of delay in filing the writ petition, the
learned advocate for the petitioners submits that there has not been
any delay in filing the present writ petition. It has been submitted
that the issue of regularization was pending consideration before the
Court in WPA/290/2019. The said writ petition stood disposed of
th
on 18 December, 2019. Though, the learned senior counsel
representing the Administration submitted upon instruction that
the regularization process would be expedited and completed within
three months and the same had been recorded in the order, but
th
even thereafter, the Administration challenged the order dated 18
December, 2019 after a delay of 127 days by filing MA 036 of 2020.
15. The aforesaid appeal was considered by the Hon’ble Division
th
Bench and dismissed on 14 October, 2020 by not interfering with
th
the order dated 18 December, 2019. The Hon’ble Division Bench
was, however, pleased to extend the time to complete the
regularization process by four months.
16. The respondents challenged the order passed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench by filing Special Leave to Appeal being No.
th
3387/2021 which stood dismissed on 09 March, 2021. After

6

dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, the impugned order of regularization was issued by the
th
authority on 12 July, 2021.
17. An application for contempt being CPAN 18 of 2022 in MA 036
of 2020 was filed by the petitioners for non compliance of the
direction passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Specific submission
by the petitioners in the contempt was that the date of
regularization of the workmen should be on and from the date when
their services were availed of by the Administration. An affidavit of
compliance was filed by the Administration disclosing that the order
of regularization was duly issued.
nd
18. The application for contempt was disposed of on 22
November, 2024 with the observation that any further relief to
which the writ petitioners are entitled to in law, shall not be
foreclosed by reasons of acceptance of the affidavit of compliance.
Immediately after the disposal of the contempt proceeding, the
th
instant writ petition has been filed on 05 February, 2025. The
petitioners diligently proceeded with the prayer for regularization.
19. I have heard and considered the rival submissions made by
the learned advocates representing the respective parties and have
perused the materials placed before the Court.

7


20. It is an admitted fact that the 122 DRMs who were regularized
in service were engaged on diverse dates on and from 1990 onwards.
After several rounds of litigation, the authority was compelled to
regularize the service of the workmen. Though the scheme of
regularization was framed on compliance of the direction passed by
the judicial fora from time to time, but in none of the orders apart
from the date of initial engagement, was taken note of.
21. The very first order in favour of the Union was passed by the
th
learned Industrial Tribunal on 13 July, 2005. The Office
th
Memorandum dated 11 December, 2006 on the subject of
regularization of qualified workers appointed against sanctioned
posts in irregular manner was issued by the Director, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India in
compliance with the direction passed by the Constitutional Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Secretary, State of
Karnataka and others vs. Umadevi (3) & Others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1.
22. After the authority regularized the service of the workmen,
they cannot be heard to submit that the workmen did not possess
the eligibility criteria for regularization. The Administration went
upto the highest judicial forum to oppose the prayer for
regularization. Only after their back touched the wall, the

8

Administration proceeded to regularize the workmen by passing
th
order on 12 July, 2021.
23. At the time of passing the order of regularization, the
authority took note of the date of engagement of the workmen on ad
st
hoc basis on 21 May, 2015 and went on to regularize their service
from the said date. The authority deliberately ignored and discarded
the earlier service rendered by the workmen since 1990 onwards. No
reason has been spelt out by the authority for not regularizing the
service of the workmen from their initial date of engagement.
24. It is true that the award of the learned Tribunal did not spell
out the specific date from which the service of the workmen had to
be regularized, but at the same time, the learned Tribunal directed
payment of daily wages to the workmen from the date of their initial
engagement. The same implies that the date of initial engagement is
the crucial date from which all service benefits ought to flow. Only
because the workmen were engaged on ad hoc basis on a particular
date, the same cannot be taken to be the date of regularization by
disregarding the earlier period of service rendered by the workmen.
25. The award passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the
Divisional Forest Officer, Baratang in WP No. 176 of 2005 which
th
stood disposed of on 13 March, 2006 by observing that there was
no evidence before the Tribunal from either of the parties about the

9

actual dates of initial engagement of the workmen as DRMs. The
Tribunal was compelled to leave the matter to the employer to pass
appropriate order from the respective date of initial engagement of
the workmen. The Court affirmed the finding of the Tribunal that
the nature of work of the workmen and the regular employees in the
organization is the same.
th
26. The judgment dated 13 March, 2006 was carried in appeal
by the Divisional Forest Officer, by filing MAT 16 of 2006 which
th
stood dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 16 July, 2006.
The order of the Hon’ble Division Bench was challenged by the
Administration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP 698 of
2007. During the pendency of the SLP, the Conservator of Forests
allowed the benefit of pay in compliance of the award.
st
27. Ultimately on 21 May, 2015 the Conservator of Forests
issued order of ad hoc appointment of 122 DRMs who were engaged
th
before 10 April, 1996 and had requisite qualification under the
pre-revised recruitment rules, 1992 for the post Mazdoors at the
time of their initial engagement on ad hoc basis with immediate
effect. By the said order the pay band with grade pay was also fixed.

28. Even though the authority noticed that the DRMs were
th
engaged before 10 April, 1996, but went on to regularize their
st
service with effect from 21 May, 2015. The Office Memorandum

10

issued by the Ministry to take steps in compliance with the direction
th
passed in the matter of Umadevi (supra) was issued on 11
December, 2006.
29. Before the learned labour Tribunal, none of the parties could
specify any date with regard to the initial engagement of the
st
workmen. In the order dated 21 May, 2015, the authority
categorically disclosed that all the 122 DRMs were engaged before
th st
10 April, 1996. From the said order dated 21 May, 2015, it can be
safely concluded, that all the workmen were rendering service prior
th
to 10 April, 1996.

30. For all practical purposes the authority ought to have taken
th
10 April, 1996 as the date of initial engagement of the workmen
and ought to have provided service benefits to them on and from the
said date and not from the date of ad hoc appointment. The order of
th
regularization, accordingly, ought to have been with effect from 10
st
April, 1996 and not from 21 May, 2015. The very first litigation was
instituted before the Tribunal in the year 2002. It may be that the
th
workmen were working even prior to 10 April, 1996, but as no
direct evidence of the initial date of engagement was produced
before the learned Labour Tribunal, the fact finding Court, hence, to
avoid any conflict of date in the absence of direct evidence, the date
which was taken by the authority as the date of engagement ought

11

to have been considered for grant of regularization and all
consequential relief.
31. It has to be kept in mind that the issue of regularization was
left open by the learned Tribunal to be decided by the authority. At
the time of taking a decision, the authority ought to have considered
regularization on and from the date of initial engagement. As the
date of initial engagement of the employees was not certain, the
authority ought to have taken the date from where records are
available to ascertain their engagement. The authority approved the
appointment of the workmen by clearly noting that they were
th
engaged before 10 April, 1996, suggesting that the authority is in
th
possession of documents of the employees at least from 10 April,
1996.
32. The ground of delay in filing the present writ petition as raised
by the respondents cannot be accepted by the Court. On the
contrary, it appears that the workmen, through their Union, are
diligently and persistently ventilating their grievances since 2002.
Each and every order passed in favour of the workmen was assailed
by the authority till the last level. The Court was compelled to
execute the order by passing direction upon the authority to file
affidavit in compliance. It does not appear that there has either been
delay or laches on the part of the petitioners in filing the present
writ petition.

12


33. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the Court is of
the considered opinion that the date of regularization and grant of
th
all consequential benefit to the 122 DRMs ought to be taken as 10
April, 1996.
34. The respondents are directed to update the records of the
workmen and recalculate their financial implications upon taking
th
into consideration the date of regularization as 10 April, 1996 in
st
place and instead of 21 May, 2015. The date of regularization
th
mentioned in the order dated 12 July, 2021 regularizing the
st
service of the DRMs with effect from 21 May, 2015, accordingly,
stands set aside.
35. The competent respondent authority is directed to take steps
to comply the direction passed hereinabove at the earliest but
positively within a period of sixty days from the date of
communication of this order.

36. The writ petition being WPA/71/2025 stands allowed.
37. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
38. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this
judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

( AMRITA SINHA, J. )