Prosecutor Working On Contractual Basis Cannot Claim Regularisation : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court docket not too long ago rejected a plea by a Public Prosecutor, appointed on a contractual foundation, looking for regularisation.

A bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the Calcutta Excessive Court docket had not dedicated any error in rejecting the petitioner’s writ utility looking for instructions for regularisation.

The Court docket famous that the petitioner had himself been requesting the District Justice of the Peace of Purulia to permit him to proceed within the position on a contractual foundation to earn a livelihood.

The court docket noticed, “The petitioner has not been capable of set up any proper both statutory or constitutional in order to deserve the aid of regularisation. The appointment of Further Public Prosecutors is a structured process as supplied below the Code of Felony Process, 1973 and the related Guidelines prevalent within the explicit State. Thus, a declare for regularisation of an individual engaged on the mentioned publish on contractual foundation can’t be entertained as such aid can be opposite to legislation.”

Accordingly, the Court docket dismissed the Particular Go away Petition, stating it lacked benefit.

The appointment of Public Prosecutors and Further Public Prosecutors was earlier ruled by Part 24 of the CrPC and now by Part 18 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Each provisions lay down that such appointments have to be made by the State Authorities in session with the District Justice of the Peace and the Periods Choose, and solely from amongst those that have practised as advocates for no less than seven years. The place an everyday cadre of prosecuting officers exists, appointments are to be made solely from throughout the cadre, until the State Authorities finds no appropriate particular person out there in it

The petitioner had initially been engaged by the District Justice of the Peace, Purulia on 20 June 2014 to discharge capabilities as an Assistant Public Prosecutor for State circumstances within the Court docket of the Further Chief Judicial Justice of the Peace. This was to handle a emptiness within the publish. He was to be paid charges on the charge of Rs. 459 per look for a most of two circumstances per day.

Later, the petitioner was additionally requested to prosecute circumstances within the Court docket of the Judicial Justice of the Peace, Raghunathpur. He then sought enhancement of his charge and filed an Unique Utility earlier than the State Administrative Tribunal looking for regularisation. The Tribunal initially allowed his utility by an order dated 16 December 2022. Nonetheless, the Principal Secretary, Judicial Division, Authorities of West Bengal rejected the petitioner’s declare on 12 June 2023.

The petitioner then moved the Tribunal once more looking for the next reliefs: to put aside the order of the Principal Secretary, to regularise his service, to make sure he’s not faraway from service as it’s his solely supply of revenue, to supply him job safety until retirement, and to grant him equal pay.

The Tribunal, on reconsideration, famous that the petitioner was engaged solely on a contractual foundation and never by way of any common appointment. It additionally noticed that the petitioner had himself requested continued engagement as a consequence of livelihood considerations. The Tribunal discovered his declare for regularisation or pay parity with often appointed Assistant Public Prosecutors to be unsustainable in legislation.

Earlier than the Excessive Court docket, the petitioner submitted that his present remuneration was insufficient and had not been revised in over eleven years. He argued that he ought to no less than be paid charges equal to panel attorneys. The State submitted that there was no legislation below which the petitioner might declare such aid. The Excessive Court docket agreed with the State’s submissions and upheld the Tribunal’s choice.

Nonetheless, being attentive to the petitioner’s grievance relating to insufficient charges, the Excessive Court docket granted liberty to him to strategy the authorities for reconsideration of the charge, and directed that the identical could also be thought of.

The Supreme Court docket upheld the Excessive Court docket’s view.