JUDGMENT
Susanta Chatterji, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed praying, inter alia, for a Writ of Mandamus to cancel the impugned order of termination issued by the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Calcutta (North), and for other consequential reliefs, as stated in the writ petition.
2. It is placed on record that the petitioner joined the office of the District Manager, Food Corporation of India, in the year 1985, and has been performing the duties and responsibilities assinged to him to the satisfaction of all authorities concerned. It is further stated that he has completed more than 1592 days service in the Food Corporation of India by working 178 days in 1985, 235 days in 1986, 233 days in 1987, 324 days in 1988, 245 days in 1989, 237 days in 1990 and 140 days in 1991. It is alleged that the petitioner has been allowed to work as casual employee in the post of Compt-Metre-Machine-Operator with due sanction of the office of the Senior Regional Manager, Foor Corporation of India.
3. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that although the petitioner is working against the perennial nature of work and against a permanent vacancy, he should have been absorbed as a regular employee in accordance with law.
4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents authorities by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. It is disclosed, inter alia, that the petitioner was given work by the Food Corporation of India at the time of urgent need at a daily rated contractual basis and the petitioner cannot ask for regular employment. The other allegations are, however, denied. The affidavit-in-reply by the petitioner reiterates the points made out in the writ petition and controvert the allegations made in the affidavit-in-opposition.
5. Having heard the learned lawyers on both sides and considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that admittedly the petitioner is. working as a casual worker/employee for ever 7 years. The work or job appears to be perennial in nature. There is no earthly reason why the respondents should not consider regularisation of the services of the petitioner in accordance with law. It is not appreciated by this Court that for a large number: of years, the petitioner has been permitted to work on casual basis.
6. Regularity and security of service are the two most important criteria. The principle has been followed out if the petitioner is found to have been working regularly for years together and the job is of perennial, and/or permanent nature, there is no bar and/or impediment to consider regularisation of services of the writ petitioner in accordance with law.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find anything wrong in giving the reliefs to the petitioner in the manner as prayed for.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the respondents authorities will consider absorption of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order.
9. A Writ of Mandamus do issue accordingly.
10. There will be no order as to costs.