Long-serving contractual service warrants minimum regular pay and pensionary regularization despite absence of sanctioned posts.

Kumarghat Nagar Panchayat advertised vacancies, including Lower Division Clerk (“LDC”), on 22 August 2003. The petitioner applied, participated in the interview held on 2 September 2003, was selected, and joined as an LDC on 31 October/1 November 2003 on fixed remuneration of ₹2,000 per month for an initial contractual period of six months.

She continued to discharge LDC duties for approximately 20 years without any allegation of unsatisfactory performance and was deputed for computer training.

Her name was repeatedly included in proposals submitted by Kumarghat Nagar Panchayat/Municipal Council for regularisation, including after completion of 10 and 15 years of service.

Other employees appointed during the same period were subsequently regularised, whereas the petitioner was not.

The petitioner previously approached the High Court in WP(C) No. 116 of 2021. The writ petition and subsequent writ appeal were disposed of with directions concerning consideration of her representation.

After further representation and contempt proceedings, the respondents issued memorandum dated 26 June 2024, which the petitioner challenged as arbitrary and illegal.

The State contended that she had been engaged purely on a contractual basis against no sanctioned post, whereas the employees who were regularised had been appointed against duly sanctioned posts with Finance Department concurrence.

The petitioner retired/released from service on 31 January 2024 on attaining the age of 60 years and consequently remained without pensionary benefits.

Whether the petitioner, having been selected through an advertised process and having continuously served as an LDC for approximately 20 years, was entitled to regularisation despite the respondents’ contention that she had worked against no sanctioned post.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to the minimum of the regular pay scale for the period during which she performed duties comparable to those of regular LDCs.

Whether, after her retirement, regularisation could be directed retrospectively or from the date of release for the limited purpose of determining pension and other terminal benefits.

The Court applied the distinction under Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) between illegal appointments and irregular appointments, including the principle that duly qualified persons appointed through an irregular process and continuing for more than ten years may be considered for one-time regularisation.

Relying on Rupesh R. Gaonkar v. State of Goa, Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, and Jaggo v. Union of India, the Court held that Umadevi should not be mechanically used to deny relief to long-serving employees performing essential and perennial functions, particularly where the engagement was not a clandestine or backdoor appointment.

Under State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, temporary, contractual, or daily-wage employees performing the same duties and responsibilities as regular employees may claim the minimum of the regular pay scale, subject to proof of functional parity; the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is distinct from regularisation.

The Court also referred to Rule 78(1) of the Tripura Municipal Act, 1994, under which the State Government possesses authority concerning the creation and regulation of municipal posts.

The Court also referred to Dharam Singh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1735, concerning regularisation and recalculation of pensionary and terminal benefits for retired employees.

The Court found that the petitioner had entered service pursuant to a public advertisement and selection process, possessed the requisite eligibility, continuously performed the duties of an LDC for about 20 years, and had no adverse service record.

Although the State relied on the absence of a formally sanctioned post, it did not dispute the petitioner’s selection, long service, eligibility, or satisfactory performance, nor did it explain why similarly engaged employees had been regularised while the petitioner alone was excluded.

The Court therefore treated the State’s conduct as arbitrary and held that the petitioner’s case was materially different from an illegal backdoor appointment.

However, because she had already been released from service, the Court considered that regularisation for the entire period from her initial appointment was no longer practically available.

Applying Jagjit Singh, the Court held that she could not be denied the minimum time-scale applicable to the post when she had performed the same work as regular LDCs for a prolonged period.

Regularisation from the date of her release was considered appropriate to enable computation of pension and other pensionary benefits.

The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner the minimum time-scale of the post held by her for three years preceding her release from service on 31 January 2024.

The respondents were further directed to regularise her service with effect from 31 January 2024 for the purpose of calculating and granting pension and other pensionary benefits.

The petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.