Indefinite use of Plan posts for perennial governmental functions is arbitrary and warrants regularization of services.

The petitioners were appointed through a selection process to the Fish Farmers Development Agency (FFDA), initially a Central Sector/Centrally Sponsored Scheme

In 1997, the Scheme was transferred to the State of Assam

Despite the Fishery Department's repeated proposals for "normalization" (converting Plan posts to Non-Plan/regular establishment) and the fact that the State retained the scheme as a core government function, the Finance Department rejected these proposals

The Finance Department contended that normalization was not permissible because the FFDAs were registered as societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860

The petitioners, some of whom retired during the decade-long pendency of the writ, sought regularization and service benefits

1. Whether the refusal of the Finance Department to normalize/provincialize the posts in the FFDA was arbitrary and unreasonable

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to regularization and consequential service benefits despite the scheme being technically run under a society

The court primarily applied the constitutional mandates of Articles 14, 16, and 21 regarding equality and the right to life/livelihood

It relied on the principle that the State is a "constitutional employer" and cannot perpetuate precarious "ad-hocism" for perennial work as established in Dharam Singh v. State of U.P. (2025)

It further considered the guidelines for "Committed Non-Plan Expenditure" from the 11th Five-Year Plan and distinguished the restrictive precedents of Dhyan Singh v. State of Haryana and Parmeshwar Nanda v. State of Jharkhand

The court found that the FFDA's functions were perennial and integral to the Fishery Department

It rejected the Finance Department's "society" argument as "malice in law," noting that the State exercised deep and pervasive control over these societies and had already normalized similar schemes in other departments

The court observed that the four conditions for normalization set by the Finance Department's 2005 communication were fully satisfied

Applying remains from Dharam Singh, the court reasoned that using "temporary" or "plan" labels for staff performing core functions for 40-50 years is a tool for exploitation to deny social security benefits like pensions and gratuity

Since the State had already merged the posts of Chief Executive Officers of the FFDA into regular service in 1993, denying the same to the petitioners was held to be discriminatory

The court directed the Respondents to: (i) regularize the petitioners' services effective from 27.07.2007 by creating supernumerary posts; (ii) grant pay protection and count service from that date for pension, gratuity, and terminal benefits; and (iii) extend these benefits to retired petitioners and families of deceased petitioners within specific timelines (3 to 8 months)