Denial of regularization benefits to a deceased employee based solely on date of death constitutes arbitrary discrimination.

Late Nalini Mohan Debnath was appointed as a Supervisor (ICDS) on a temporary basis on April 1, 1991.

He passed away on February 12, 2012.

Subsequently, on June 2, 2017, the State Cabinet decided to regularize the services of other similarly situated employees (appointed along with the deceased) effective from their initial appointment dates, granting them seniority and pensionary benefits.

Despite his peers (including some who retired or died shortly before the cabinet decision) receiving these benefits, the appellants denied regularization to Nalini Mohan Debnath’s legal heirs on the grounds that he died in 2012, prior to the policy decision.

The legal heirs (Respondents 1-3) filed a writ petition, which was allowed by a Learned Single Judge on January 31, 2025. The State appealed this decision.

1. Whether the denial of regularization and consequential benefits to a deceased temporary employee constitutes arbitrariness and discrimination when similarly situated colleagues were granted such benefits retrospectively.

2. Whether the respondents are entitled to interest on the delayed payment of retiral benefits.

The Court applied the constitutional principle of non-discrimination and equality under Article 14, asserting that the State cannot create a classification based on the "fortuitous aspect of the date of death" for employees in the same class.

The Court relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Madanlal Sharma (Dead) Through LRS. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14753 of 2024), which held that pensionary benefits should be granted to temporary employees who died in service by treating them as permanent employees for the purpose of family pension.

The Court reasoned that refusing regularization to the deceased while granting it to others appointed at the same time—specifically those like Nripendra Nath, who also died before the 2017 cabinet decision but were still regularized—amounted to unjustifiable discrimination.

The Bench observed that since Nalini Mohan Debnath and his regularized peers were all appointed on an ad-hoc basis on the same date, they formed a single class.

The Court held that the benefits of the 2017 decision must extend to the deceased to avoid arbitrariness.

Regarding the claim for 18% interest, the Court found the demand excessive and determined that a rate of 6% per annum was more appropriate given the circumstances.

The Court ordered the release of all service benefits, including death-cum-retirement gratuity and leave encashment, to the respondents; the appellants are directed to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from June 2, 2017, until the actual date of payment.