sJUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. T. C. Chutia, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to regularize/provincialize the services of the Petitioners as a one-time measure with retrospective effect by normalizing the posts with all consequential benefits. 3. Before detailing out the facts, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of that the writ petition was filed in the year 2015, and at the time when the present writ petition was taken up for final disposal, some of the writ petitioners have already retired. BRIEF FACTS: 4. Fish Farmers Development Agency, (for short, ‘FFDA’) was constituted in Assam under the Central Sector Scheme (Freshwater Aquaculture) during the 5th Five-Year Plan period (1975-80). In terms of the decision taken by the National Development Council, the Planning Commission of India transferred the Scheme from Central Sector to Centrally Sponsored Scheme from 1979-80 onwards with sharing expenditure on 50:50 basis between the Central Government and the State Government concerned till 1981. The FFDA is generally run under a particular staff pattern as per the norms approved by the Expenditure Finance Committee in the revised Memorandum during the 6th Five-Year Plan (1980-85) dated 06.11.1981 and a communication dated 02.02.1982 issued by the Director of Fisheries, Government of Assam. 5. The Government of India as well as the Government of Assam have created various posts and this aspect would be apparent from Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Deputy Director of Fisheries, Assam dated 19.07.2016. In this respect, it is pertinent to mention that a perusal of the said Annexure-I would show that in all the 12 districts, with the approval of the Finance Department of the Government of Assam, the posts were created, sanctioned and/or retained. It also shows that certain posts were created by the Government of India in 1970s in the Districts of Kamrup and Darrang which were retained by the Finance Department and the other posts were created in the year 1980s by the Finance Department, Government of Assam. 6. It also shows that certain posts were created by the Government of India in 1970s in the Districts of Kamrup and Darrang which were retained by the Finance Department and the other posts were created in the year 1980s by the Finance Department, Government of Assam. 6. At this stage, it is also relevant to take note of the status of manpower position under the development of freshwater aquaculture under the FFDA as on 2008-2009 which is certified by the Director of Fisheries, Assam on 16.12.2008. From a perusal of the said document, it transpires that in the 11 Districts excluding Karbi Anglong, there exists 166 sanctioned posts and in the district of Karbi Anglong, there are 14 posts totaling to 180 posts. These posts have been sanctioned and/or retained by the Government of Assam with due concurrence of the Finance Department, Government of Assam. Out of the said 180 posts, 115 posts have been filled up and 65 posts were vacant. It may not be out of place to mention that in the year 2008, although there were 23 FFDAs in Assam, but only 12 FFDAs in the districts of Kamrup, Nagaon, Sonitpur, Lakhimpur, Dibrugarh, Jorhat, Dhubri, Cachar, Karimganj, Darrang, Kokrajhar and Karbi Anglong were having staff against sanctioned posts as per the norms of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme. 7. In the above backdrop, let this Court take note of the case of the Petitioners. The Petitioners are staff appointed in pursuance to a due selection process in different posts under the III Centrally Sponsored Scheme, “Freshwater Aquaculture” and till the date of filing of the writ petition, all the Petitioners were rendering service and presently, many of them continue to render service. 8. The Commissioner and Secretary, Fishery Department, Government of Assam, had issued a notification dated 19.07.1993 thereby merging 12 posts of Chief Executive Officer in the pay scale of Rs.1,835/- - 4,325/- per month, created under the FFDA with the post of District Fishery Development Officer of the concerned Districts. However, the Petitioners for reasons best known to the Respondents were kept out of the purview of the merger. 9. It is apposite at this stage to take into consideration a development which took place in the year 1997. The Planning Commission prepared a NOTE on transfer of Centrally Sponsored Scheme to various State Governments. However, the Petitioners for reasons best known to the Respondents were kept out of the purview of the merger. 9. It is apposite at this stage to take into consideration a development which took place in the year 1997. The Planning Commission prepared a NOTE on transfer of Centrally Sponsored Scheme to various State Governments. The said NOTE contained wide discussions on the need of transfer of Centrally Sponsored Schemes to the State Governments. It was mentioned therein that th during the approach to the 7 Five-Year Plan, the issue of the transfer of Centrally Sponsored Schemes to the various Departments of the States were raised and an expert group under the Chairmanship of Shri K. Ramamurthy was set up to review the issue of transfer. Thereupon, a Committee was set up under the Chairmanship of Sri P.V. Narasimha Rao, the then Minister of Human Resource Development. The Committee recommended that out of 262 Centrally Sponsored Schemes which were under th implementation at the commencement of the 7 Plan, 113 Schemes be transferred to State with resources. 10. A review of the status of the 113 Schemes to be transferred was carried out which revealed that 68 (sixty eight) Schemes were discontinued or had become defunct. 4 (four) Schemes were approved as Central Sector Schemes and 15 (fifteen) Schemes were transferred to the States and 6 (six) Schemes were yet to be transferred. In the meeting of National Development Council held in the year 1997 to discuss the draft approach of the 9 Plan, several Chief Ministers of the States reiterated their suggestion for transfer of Centrally Sponsored Schemes to the States along with resources, particularly in the sectors which were a part of the State list as per the Constitution. The NOTE contained the list of schemes to be retained and to be transferred and request was made to the Central Ministries/Departments and the States/UT Governments to furnish their comments. The said NOTE was communicated to all State Governments/UT Governments vide a letter dated 26.05.1997. A perusal of the list enclosed with NOTE would show that at Serial No.10, the Scheme under which the Petitioners were appointed was mentioned “To be transferred”. 11. The said NOTE was communicated to all State Governments/UT Governments vide a letter dated 26.05.1997. A perusal of the list enclosed with NOTE would show that at Serial No.10, the Scheme under which the Petitioners were appointed was mentioned “To be transferred”. 11. The records also show that the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Planning and Development Department issued a communication dated 12.06.1997 to the Principal Secretary/Commissioner and Secretary/Secretary to all Departments asking their views pertaining to ensuing transfer of Centrally Sponsored Scheme in terms with the aforesaid letter dated 26.05.1997 issued by the Government of India. It was mentioned in the said communication that since decision have been taken by the Chief Ministers in the National Development Council Meeting, therefore the transfer has to be effectuated. The Departments were requested to suggest any changes in the Schemes. It was also mentioned that if the Scheme(s) is/were to be dropped, the Departments were required to suggest as to how the staff created under the Scheme would be utilized or redeployed. 12. The Director of Fisheries, Assam issued a communication dated 24.06.1997 to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department giving his views on the ensuing transfer of the Centrally Sponsored Schemes. In the said communication, the Director of Fisheries mentioned that two Centrally Sponsored Schemes are running in the Fishery Department i.e. (i) Freshwater Aquaculture (FFDA) and (ii) Welfare of Fisherman (Housing Scheme). The Director of the Fisheries suggested that after transfer of the FFDA Scheme, the regular absorption of the staff will be a concern for the State Department and accordingly suggested for evolving a phase-wise program for regularization of the staff under the FFDA. The Director of Fisheries, however, gave a suggestion for discontinuation of the other Centrally Sponsored Scheme, i.e. Welfare of Fisherman (Housing Scheme) because continuation of the said Scheme could not fetch any benefit to the State. 13. There are no materials available before this Court as to what steps were taken pursuant to the suggestions provided by the Director of Fisheries, Assam in the communication dated 24.06.1997. Be that as it may, the FFDA was transferred to the State of Assam and the Petitioners herein along with others who were rendering services in the FFDA, continued to render their services and their payments were duly made from the coffers of the State of Assam. Be that as it may, the FFDA was transferred to the State of Assam and the Petitioners herein along with others who were rendering services in the FFDA, continued to render their services and their payments were duly made from the coffers of the State of Assam. It is relevant to observe at this stage that the FFDA was brought within the fold of the State of Assam upon its transfer in the year 1997 and the State of Assam continued with the FFDA and still continues as on date. This aspect is relevant as would be seen at a later stage of the instant judgment. 14. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of another important development. The Finance (Budget) Department of the Government of Assam through the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance Department, issued a communication dated 10.05.2005 informing all Principal Secretary/Commissioner and Secretary/Secretary to the Government of Assam relating to normalization of posts into the State Plan. In that regard, proposals were sought from the various Departments of the Government of Assam to the respective Expenditure Control Branch of the Finance Department after obtaining approval from the Planning and Development Department for normalization of all posts under the State during the Financial Year 2005-2006 for necessary concurrence. Various conditions were mentioned which were required to be looked into while identifying the posts to be normalized. The various terms which have been mentioned in the said communication dated 10.05.2005 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “(i) Only the filled up regular posts created in prescribed time scale with concurrence of Finance Department and not the vacant posts are to be normalized. (ii) While submitting proposals for normalization, it is to be ensured that upto date retention order has been duly issued in respect of each posts which are not permanently retained. Copies of sanctioning letter for creation of post and latest retention (Permanent/Temporary) are to be furnished alongwith the proposal for normalization. (iii) Employees Identification Number/GPF account No. of each of the incumbents against the post to be normalized is to be furnished. (iv) Gross monthly salary of the incumbents to be furnished. (v) Particulars furnished through the proforma at annexure-II is to be countersigned by Sr. F.A./F.A./Sr. F.A.O./F.A.O. as the cause may be and authenticated by the Commissioner/Secretary of the Department. (iii) Employees Identification Number/GPF account No. of each of the incumbents against the post to be normalized is to be furnished. (iv) Gross monthly salary of the incumbents to be furnished. (v) Particulars furnished through the proforma at annexure-II is to be countersigned by Sr. F.A./F.A./Sr. F.A.O./F.A.O. as the cause may be and authenticated by the Commissioner/Secretary of the Department. (vi) After obtaining concurrence to the normalization proposal, Administrative Department will issue a notification indicating transfer of posts from State plan to Non-Plan as per specimen at annexure-III. (vii) Posts that are normalized are to be shown separately in the budget estimate for Non-Plan for the year 2006-07.” 15. The said proposals were to be submitted to the respective Expenditure Control Branches of the Finance Department latest by 31.05.2005, so as to complete the entire process of normalization within 31.08.2005. The enclosure to the said document also referred the Fishery Department at Serial No.6. 16. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to understand what the above communication meant. For that purpose, one has to understand the concept of normalisation of posts. For administrative exigency, sometimes posts are created under the Plan budget (i.e. funded through development scheme or Five Year Plan). These Plan posts are normally considered exceptional or temporary as they are created for a specific scheme or project. When such posts are normalised, it becomes a part of the normal permanent establishment of the Government. The act of normalisation of the posts are carried out when works carried out are recognized as a routine ongoing Government function rather than a time bound project activity. It is also pertinent to take note of the effect of normalisation of the post(s). Upon normalisation, the following changes occur to the treatment of the post(s): (a) The salary burden shifts from the plan/development budget to the revenue/establishment budget. (b) The post no longer depends on the scheme’s continuation or plan period renewal. (c) The incumbents gain the security and service conditions of a regular Government employee. (d) The post(s) survive even if the original scheme ends or is restructured. It is apposite also to mention that there is a fundamental difference between the concept of regularisation and normalisation. (b) The post no longer depends on the scheme’s continuation or plan period renewal. (c) The incumbents gain the security and service conditions of a regular Government employee. (d) The post(s) survive even if the original scheme ends or is restructured. It is apposite also to mention that there is a fundamental difference between the concept of regularisation and normalisation. In case of regularisation, a temporary or a contractual employee is converted into a permanent employee whereas in the case of normalisation, it amounts to converting a post from plan funding to non plan/regular establishment. In other words, normalisation is about the budgetary character of the post whereas regularization, it is the change of the employment status. However, in practice, the normalisation of a post often precedes or accompanies regularisation of the incumbent. The understanding of the above aspect is relevant inasmuch as the reliefs sought for in the writ petition is normalisation of the posts held by the Petitioners with retrospective effect. 17. Moving forward, the records do not show as to whether the Fishery Department then submitted any proposal, taking into account the FFDA Scheme was transferred to the State of Assam in the year 1997 itself and had been continuing in a routine manner. However, on 27.07.2007, the Director of Fisheries wrote a letter to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department submitting the proposal for normalization of FFDA Officers and Staffs. In the said letter, it was mentioned that there were 23 (twenty three) numbers of FFDA including 2 (two) Hill Districts functioning in the State. Out of the 23 FFDAs, in the 12 FFDAs there were 180 number of sanctioned posts under the State Plan since inception of the respective FFDAs and out of which, 128 number of posts were filled up and 52 posts were lying vacant. It was further mentioned that 100% of the salary component of the base staff and the deputed staff are borne by the State Government as per the guidelines in the scheme of "Development of Freshwater through FFDA" issued by the Government of India and the said salary component is drawn by the Directorate of Fisheries subject to sanction by the Administrative Department with due concurrence from the Planning and Development Department, Finance (EC-I) Department and Finance (Budget) Department respectively. It was also mentioned that the total requirement of fund under the salary component came to Rs.16.62 lakhs as on March, 2007 per month and Rs.199.47 lakhs for a period of one year as indicated in the L-form statement enclosed for sanctioned posts under 12 FFDAs (including Karbi Anglong). Additionally, it was mooted that the salary were drawn as grants-in-aid under the Head of Account “2405-Fisheries (Plan) 800-other expenditure III Centrally Sponsored Scheme 09 - grants-in-aid” and the proposal was to transfer those posts for normalization to the Head of Account, “2405-Fisheries (Non-Plan) 001-Direction & Administration 143-District Administration”. 18. While the aforesaid process was initiated, in the meantime, the Government of India issued Guidelines for the Classification of Expenditure (plan and non-plan) for the 11th Five-Year Plan, (2007-12). In terms with Clause-B of the guidelines, the Committed Non- Plan Expenditure liability is to be borne by the State Government in respect of the State Plan and Centrally Sponsored Scheme. Moreover, as per Clause B(vi) of the guidelines, all the grants-in-aid up to the level attained at the end of the year 2006-07 would be transferred to non-plan side of the Expenditure Budget from the year 2007-08. Clause B(vi) of the guidelines being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ B(vi) All Grants-in-aid up to the level attained at the end of the year 2006-07 will get transferred as the non-plan side of the Expenditure Budget for 2007-08.” 19. The records further reveal that the then Minister of Fisheries informed the then Chief Minister of Assam that the Fishery Department submitted a proposal to the Finance Department for normalization of 176 number of posts which were created under the Central Sector Scheme for the Freshwater Aquaculture through FFDA in the Department of Fishery with due approval of the Planning and Development Department of the Government of Assam with the concurrence of the Finance Department so that these employees were given their salaries regularly. It was further mentioned that the Finance Department had suggested for provincialization of these posts first under head “2405-Fisheries (Non-Plan) 001-Direction and Administration, 143-District Administration under Salary Head” during the financial year 2010-11. In that regard, a proposal was sent to the Finance Department again for provincialization of these FFDA posts. It was further mentioned that the Finance Department had suggested for provincialization of these posts first under head “2405-Fisheries (Non-Plan) 001-Direction and Administration, 143-District Administration under Salary Head” during the financial year 2010-11. In that regard, a proposal was sent to the Finance Department again for provincialization of these FFDA posts. The Chief Minister of Assam was requested by the Minister of Fisheries, Assam to look into the matter sympathetically and pass necessary orders to the Finance Department for provincialization of these FFDA posts so that these 176 FFDA employees may get benefit. 20. The State Government however, did not take any steps and it is under such circumstances, the Petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court. 21. It may not be out of place herein to observe that it is an admitted fact that the State of Assam had normalized various posts in different Departments of the Government and have also regularized various persons in various Departments during this period. 22. The records reveal that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, the Fishery Department had filed an affidavit-in- opposition wherein also the Fishery Department which is the Administrative Department concerned, had supported the normalization of the posts. It is mentioned in the affidavit of the Fishery Department that proposals for normalization of the Plan Post of Officers and staff under FFDA were submitted in the year 2008 as well as in the year 2010. But the Finance Department had rejected such proposals. It is also mentioned in the said affidavit- in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.4 that the Cabinet Memorandum for FFDA’s posts under State Plan had already been intimated to the Government for necessary sanction vide No.AF(P) 105/2007-08/5120 dated 03.09.2009. 23. When the instant writ petition was taken up on 06.01.2026, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the materials on record would show that the services of the Petitioners under the FFDA have been continued by the State Government as a routine ongoing Government function since the last 55 years but in order to deprive the service benefits which a regular Government servant enjoys, the normalization of the posts held by the Petitioners have not been carried out. The learned Standing counsel for the Finance Department submitted that the Finance Department would like to file an affidavit-in- opposition. The learned Standing counsel for the Finance Department submitted that the Finance Department would like to file an affidavit-in- opposition. This Court accordingly granted time to the Finance Department to file the affidavit-in-opposition, though such request was made after 9 years, as the stand of the Finance Department would be necessary for a proper adjudication of the writ petition. 24. The Finance Department filed an affidavit on 24.02.2026 wherein there is no denial to the statements made at Paragraph Nos. 3 to 19 of the writ petition. At paragraph No.6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the Finance Department received a proposal from the Fishery Department for normalization/provincialization of posts of Fish Farmer Development Agency. However, on examination of the proposal, the Finance Department regretted the same on the ground that the FFDA is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. At paragraph No.10 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the proposal for regular salary of the existing FFDA employees is under active consideration of the Finance Department and the Finance Department is looking into various extant norms. Annexure-A to the said affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Finance Department is the Office Note dated 28.06.2011 whereby the Finance Department regretted its inability to agree to the proposal for normalization/ provincialization of the posts of the FFDA. 25. The Petitioners filed an affidavit-in-reply on 10.03.2026 wherein it was mentioned that the State Government exercised deep and pervasive control over the affairs of the FFDA. It was mentioned that in each district throughout the State of Assam, a Fish Farmers Development Agency was formed with similar Memorandum of Association and Regulations governing such FFDAs. In terms with the Regulations for the FFDA, the Managing Committee is headed by the Deputy Commissioner (now District Commissioner) who serves as the Chairman. Furthermore, the said Regulations also stipulated that the Managing Committee would only be constituted by the State Government. In the affidavit-in-reply, it was contended that the Petitioners have been rendering their services which are perennial in nature and the fact that the Scheme had been continued by the Fishery Department till date with due approval of the Finance Department leaves no manner of doubt that the services rendered by the Petitioners are indispensable for the effective functioning of the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES: 26. Mr. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES: 26. Mr. A. Chakraborty, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners herein were initially appointed under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme and subsequently, the said Scheme was transferred to the State Government. At the time when the Petitioners were appointed, they were appointed pursuant to a valid selection process to the posts which were created, sanctioned and retained by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam. Subsequent to the transfer of the said Scheme to the State Government, the State Government continued with the said Scheme by granting salaries to the Petitioners at par with regularly recruited employees of the Fishery Department. However, those employed under the FFDA Scheme were kept under the Plan Post of State rather than bringing them within the regular services of the State. 27. The learned counsel further drawing reference to the communication issued by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam dated 10.05.2005 as regards the normalization of post under the State Plan submitted that the case of the Petitioners duly come within the terms and conditions stipulated in the said communication dated 10.05.2005 as would be apparent from Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.4. The learned counsel submitted that only for the purpose of depriving the Petitioners the benefits of a regular employment, the posts held by the Petitioners have not been normalized to the State Plan. The learned counsel submitted that from the affidavit of the Fishery Department which is the Administrative Department under whom the Petitioners render their services have been requesting the Finance Department to bring the posts under FFDA within the Non-Plan posts of the State. 28. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2025) 8 S.C.R. 1026 as well as the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 2004. 29. Mr. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2025) 8 S.C.R. 1026 as well as the order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Talsibhai Dhanjibhai Patel reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 2004. 29. Mr. T. C. Chutia, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Fisheries Department of the State of Assam submitted that the Fisheries Department from time to time had been submitting the proposals to the Finance Department for provincialization/normalization. But the Finance Department had regretted such proposals for provincialization/ normalization of the FFDA posts to the State Plan posts. The learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submitted that as no steps have been taken by the Finance Department resulting the Petitioners along with the other FFDA employees still continue to render their services in Plan posts of the State. 30. Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance Department on the other hand submitted that the FFDA is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as such, the Finance Department had regretted the said proposal. The learned Standing counsel for the Finance Department further submitted that these Petitioners herein were appointed against a particular Scheme and as such, under no circumstances they can be said to be Government servants and therefore the question of the services rendered by the Petitioners under the Scheme to be counted for the purpose of deciding that they should be brought within the services of the State or entitled to any pensionary benefits does not arise. In that regard, the learned Standing counsel have referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhyan Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2002) 10 SCC 656 and Parmeshwar Nanda and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Others reported in (2020) 12 SCC 131 . ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 31. The facts as delineated hereinabove, makes it clear that the Petitioners herein were appointed against the posts which were created by the Government of India in 1970s as well as posts created and sanctioned by the State Government in 1980s. A perusal of Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.4 would show that all these posts have been retained by the Government of Assam with the concurrence of the Finance Department. A perusal of Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.4 would show that all these posts have been retained by the Government of Assam with the concurrence of the Finance Department. At the time of the appointment, the Petitioners were appointed in the Centrally Sponsored Scheme “Freshwater Aquaculture”, FFDA, Department of Fisheries, Assam. In the year 1993, the Chief Executive Officers who were working under the FFDA Scheme, their posts were merged with the post of District Fishery Development Officer of the concerned Districts vide a notification dated 19.07.1993. This aspect is apparent from Annexure-III to the writ petition. However, the Petitioners were left out. 32. It is also very pertinent to take note of that as far back as in the year 1997 itself, a decision was taken at the request of the State Governments to transfer various Schemes which were a part of the State list. Entry 21 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule specifically refers to Fisheries. The Central Government issued a NOTE to all the State Governments/UT Governments vide the letter dated 26.05.1997 for their comments as to whether the various Centrally Sponsored Schemes are required to be transferred to the State. The Director of Fisheries vide the communication dated 24.06.1997 gave his views that the Scheme, i.e. Freshwater Aquaculture (FFDA) was required to be retained and upon the transfer of the Scheme, the regular absorption of the staff position under FFDA will be a particular concern of the State Government th and the programme should be evolved during the 9 Plan for regularization of the staff position under the FFDA. 33. The FFDA Scheme thereupon was continued and salary was paid to the staff including the Petitioners in the form of grants-in- aid under the Head of Account, “2405-Fisheries (Plan) 800-other expenditure III Centrally Sponsored Scheme 09 - grants-in-aid”. 34. The Central Government further had issued certain Guidelines th for Classification of Expenditure for the 11 Five-Year Plan in respect to Central Government, State Government, UTs outlay over the period 2007-2012. In those guidelines under the caption "COMMITTED NON PLAN EXPENDITURE", it was mentioned that items of expenditure/outlays incurred in the current (Tenth) Plan that were to be treated as committed non-plan expenditure. In those guidelines under the caption "COMMITTED NON PLAN EXPENDITURE", it was mentioned that items of expenditure/outlays incurred in the current (Tenth) Plan that were to be treated as committed non-plan expenditure. Clause B(ii) stipulated that in case of development schemes spilling over, the portion of the assets created or service/facilities established, such operation and maintenance of such assets or services/facilities are to be treated as committed non-plan expenditure. Clause B(vi) also stipulated that all grants-in-aid up to the level attained at the end of the year 2006-07 would get transferred into the Non-Plan side of the Expenditure Budget for2007-08. 35. At this stage, let this court take note of communication dated 10.05.2005 issued by the Finance Department and what proposals the Finance Department sought for. From a very perusal of the communication, it reveals that a policy decision was taken by the Government to normalize all posts under the State Plan during the Financial Year 2005-2006 and as such, proposals were invited from various Departments. For the purpose of identification of such posts which were to be normalized, seven conditions were enumerated. These seven conditions have already been quoted in the previous segments of the present judgment. It is also relevant to observe that out of the seven conditions mentioned, the conditions at Serial Nos. (i) to (iv) are relevant for identification of the posts. At this stage, it would be relevant to analyze as to whether the four conditions at Serial Nos. (i) to (iv) of the communication dated 10.05.2005 stands satisfied. For that purpose, Annexure-I to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam is relevant. A perusal of the enclosures to Annexure-I would show that all the four conditions were met. Therefore, the question arises as to why the exercise of normalisation of the FFDA posts were not carried out. In fact the issue involved in the present proceedings is not purely a case of directing regularisation but a case of inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities to not normalize the FFDA posts which were initially created on the Plan Budget to the Non-Plan Budget or the State Plan and thereby depriving the Petitioners herein to the benefits which a regular Government servant enjoys. 36. In the previous segments of the present judgment, this Court dealt with the concept of normalisation of posts. 36. In the previous segments of the present judgment, this Court dealt with the concept of normalisation of posts. Let this Court now deal with the situation when posts are normalised from Plan sector to Non-Plan sector. The circumstances are: (A) When the Central Government stops funding a Scheme or for that matter, when the Centrally Sponsored Scheme is discontinued or restructured: In such a situation, the State Government is left with posts and staff that were funded under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme. The State then has to decide whether to absorb those posts into the regular establishment or to completely shut the scheme. In the present case it would show that the FFDA was a Central Sector Scheme initially and thereupon became a Centrally Sponsored Scheme. It was at the instance of the State Governments that various Schemes were transferred to the State Governments in the year 1997. A Note was circulated by the Central Government asking for comments from the State Governments. The Fishery Department of the Government of Assam vide a communication gave its views as regards the retention of the FFDA and regularization/absorption in the regular establishment of the State. The records reveal that though the FFDA was retained but the posts in the FFDA even continue till date in the Plan Sector of the State of Assam.(B) When the Scheme becomes a permanent Government function: When the activity being carried out under a plan Scheme is recognized as an ongoing core Government function rather than a time bound project, the posts supporting the function are considered for normalisation. In the above perspective, let this Court consider as to whether the function rendered by the FFDA are a part of the ongoing core Government function. The stand of the Administrative Department i.e the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam is very relevant in this regard. (i) The records reveal that the State Government retained the FFDA Scheme and still continues with it for the last 29 years after the transfer of the FFDA under the State Government. In fact, the posts of FFDA have been rendering functions since some posts were created in 1970s and others in 1980s. There is nothing on record to show that the State Government at any point of time had proposed to do away with the FFDA or the services of the persons employed under the FFDA are not required. In fact, the posts of FFDA have been rendering functions since some posts were created in 1970s and others in 1980s. There is nothing on record to show that the State Government at any point of time had proposed to do away with the FFDA or the services of the persons employed under the FFDA are not required. Rather, the materials on record would suggest that the services rendered by the persons manning the FFDA posts are perennial in nature. In fact, the communications which have been issued by the Administrative Department from time to time would show that the services rendered by the persons like the Petitioners, are indispensable for the effective functioning of the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the communication dated 27.07.2007 issued by the Director of Fisheries, Assam wherein a proposal was made for normalization of the FFDA officers and staff. The relevant portion of the said document being pertinent to issue involved herein is reproduced herein under: “In inviting a reference to the subject cited above, I have the hounour to draw your kind notice that there are 23 (twenty three) nos. FFDAs including 2 (two) hill districts functioning in the state. In 12 (twelve) nos. FFDAs including Karbi Anglong there are 180 nos. of sanctioned posts under state plan since inception of the respective FFDAs. Out of which 128 nos. of posts are filled up and 52 nos. are lying vacant. In this connection it may be stated here that, the 100% of salary component of the base staff and deputed staff are borne by the state Govt. as per guidelines therein (copy enclosed at Annexure-A) in the scheme “Development of freshwater through FFDA” issued by the Govt. of India and the said salary component is drawn by the Directorate of Fisheries subject to according sanction by the administrative deptt. with due concurrence from P&D deptt., Finance (EC-I) deptt. And Finance (budget) deptt. respectively. Further, it may also be stated herewith that under the present system of releasing fund as grants-in-aid for 100% state share towards salary component of FFDA staff is generally delayed in the stage of observing formalities so far Finance and P&D deptt. with due concurrence from P&D deptt., Finance (EC-I) deptt. And Finance (budget) deptt. respectively. Further, it may also be stated herewith that under the present system of releasing fund as grants-in-aid for 100% state share towards salary component of FFDA staff is generally delayed in the stage of observing formalities so far Finance and P&D deptt. are concerned causing delay in releasing fund thereby delay in drawing and disbursing to the FFDAs in proper time for which CEOs of FFDAs are not in a position to pay his staff timely & regularly. The total requirement of fund under salary component comes to Rs.16.62 lakhs as on March’07 per month and Rs.199.47 lakhs (Annexure-B) for a period of one year as indicated in the L-Form statement at Annexure-C for sanctioned posts under 12 FFDAs (including Karbi-Anglong). However, men in position are only 128 and the remaining 52 posts are lying vacant at present (Annexure- D & E). It is proposed that on filling up of the vacant posts, the posts under all the said 12 nos. FFDAs shall be rationalized in the deptt. as there is no scope of creation of new posts.” (ii) The communication issued by the Director of Fisheries on 03.07.2009 to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Fishery Department which is Annexure-IV to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.4 being relevant and hence, the contents are reproduced herein under: “ GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES ASSAM, GUWAHATI No. AF(P)105/2007-08/5020 Dated Guwahati, the th June’2009 To : The Commissioner & Secreatry to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Deptt., Dispur, Guwahati Sub : Cabinet Memorandum on transfer of posts created under Centrally Sponsored Scheme (Plan) to State sector scheme (Plan) Ref : Note from the Hon’ble Minister for Fisheries, Assam dtd. 17 th June’09 Sir, As per instruction of the Hon’ble Minister for Fisheries, Assam, vide note under reference (copy enclosed) a draft Cabinet Memorandum on transfer of posts created under Centrally Sponsored Scheme (Plan) to State sector scheme (Plan) has been prepared. It is stated that, presently, the manpower strength of the Department is poor which is one of the major constrains hindering timely implementation and monitoring of various State Plan, Central sector, Centrally Sponsored Schemes, NFDB scheme, World Bank funded schemes viz., AACP, RKVY etc. and in expanding further activities of the department. It is stated that, presently, the manpower strength of the Department is poor which is one of the major constrains hindering timely implementation and monitoring of various State Plan, Central sector, Centrally Sponsored Schemes, NFDB scheme, World Bank funded schemes viz., AACP, RKVY etc. and in expanding further activities of the department. To partially meet the shortage of manpower of the Deptt., the 186 posts created by the Deptt. of Fisheries, Govt. of Assam with due concurrence of Finance Department, Govt. of Assam about 35 years back under 12 Fish Farmers Development Agencies (in 11 plain districts and 1 hill district) for aquaculture development programmes in the District level under Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) are proposed to be transferred from CSS to State Plan. I therefore request you kindly to take necessary steps in respect of the draft Cabinet Memorandum for transferring of the posts as stated above. Yours sincerely, Director of Fisheries Assam : Guwahati” (iii) The justification given by the Director of Fisheries in the communication dated 26.08.2010 for normalization of the plan post of officers and staff under the FFDA which is Annexure-II to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.4 is also relevant. The said communication is reproduced herein under: “ GOVT. OF ASSAM DIRECTORATE OF FISHERIES ASSAM : GUWAHATI No. AF(S)105/2007-08/4627 dated Guwahati, the 26 th August’2010 From : I. Haque, ACS Director of Fisheries Assam, Guwahati. To : The Commissioner & Secreatry to the Govt. of Assam, Fishery Department Dispur, Guwahati Sub : Normalization of Plan Posts of Officers & Staff under FFDA. Ref : FISH/203/99/450 Dated 15/06/10 Sir, With reference to the above, I have the honour to state that the CSS schemes being implemented through FFDAs are very important schemes for development of aquaculture in the state like Assam where there is enough potential for aquaculture development. It needs mention here that the officers/staff appointed under FFDAs are equally engaged like other employees of the Department for implementation of different development schemes in the districts. It is further mentioned that no plan posts were created in the department during last 18-20 years since creation of a good number of districts, sub-division and blocks during the period. In many districts, the offices are run/managed by original staff of the sub-divisional office while many sub-divisional offices have to be managed by the Sub-Divisional Officer alone. It is further mentioned that no plan posts were created in the department during last 18-20 years since creation of a good number of districts, sub-division and blocks during the period. In many districts, the offices are run/managed by original staff of the sub-divisional office while many sub-divisional offices have to be managed by the Sub-Divisional Officer alone. This has resulted considerable constraint in implementation of development programmes. The activities of the Department have increased considerably and infusion of development fund over last few years has increased manifold (700-800%). It may further be stated that the Department has established itself as one of the most performing Departments of the Government of Assam and genuinely requires a number of need based essential posts for both office and field in some districts/sub-divisions. The proposal for normalization of the posts created under CSS was submitted because of essential need of the Department as indicated above. In this connection, it may be mentioned here that vide letter No.PDPSS/2007/55 dtd 2 nd November’2007 Govt. of Assam has informed that, Govt. of India indicated in “Classification of Expenditure (Plan and Non-Plan) for the 11 th Five Year Plan (2007-12)” that all expenditures connected with maintenance of existing institutions and establishments will be treated as Non-Plan committed expenditure ( Annexure-I ). Further the letter stated that all grants-in-aid upto the level attained at the end of the year 2006-07 will get transferred to the Non-Plan side of the expenditure budget for 2007-08. Accordingly, the proposal for normalization of the FFDA posts were submitted to Govt. vide letter No.AF(P)105/2007-08/46/10132 dt. 06/12/2007. It is stated here that the posts, on normalization, will be proposed to be rationally shifted to the districts where there is acute shortage of staff because of which implementation of development schemes are seriously affected. Under such circumstances, it is requested to take necessary steps for early normalization of the posts under FFDAs for further improvement in performance of the Fishery sector in the State. Under such circumstances, it is requested to take necessary steps for early normalization of the posts under FFDAs for further improvement in performance of the Fishery sector in the State. Yours faithfully, Director of Fisheries Assam : Guwahati” (iv) This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the request made by the then Minister of Fisheries, Assam to the then Chief Minister on 22.12.2010, which is Annexure-17 to the writ petition and the same is reproduced herein under: “No.MISF.2/2010/ December 22, 2010 Hon’ble Chief Minister, Assam I would like to draw your kind attention to the fact that 176 number of posts were created under Central Sector Schemes (CSS) for Fresh Water Aquaculture through Fish Farmers Development Agency (FFDA) in the Department of Fisheries with due approval of P&D and concurrence of Finance Department about 25-30 years back. Besides implementation of ongoing FFDA schemes services of these employees are also utilized for implementation of all other development schemes of Fisheries Department. The department is running with shortage of manpower and as such their services are very much essential. The total annual plan fund of Fisheries Department was Rs.6-7 crore about five years back and now the department has annual plan fund of Rs.50.00 crore with a very limited manpower of its own. As such, the services of FFDA employees are being utilized for implementation of developmental schemes. These employees do not get their monthly salaries regularly and suffers a lot. In view of the facts, Fisheries Department submitted a proposal to Finance Department for normalization of these FFDA post so that they can get their salaries regularly but, the Finance Department has suggested for provincialisation of these posts first under Head “2405-Fisheries (Non Plan) 001-Direction and Administration 143-District Administration under Salary Head” during the current financial year 2010-11. Accordingly, a proposal is being sent to Finance Department again for provincialisation of these FFDA posts. Hon’ble Chief Minister may kindly look into the matter sympathetically and pass necessary orders to Finance Department for provincialisation of these FFDA posts so that these 176 FFDA employees may get benefit before the ensuing General Election. (Nurjamal Sarkar) Minister, Fisheries, Assam” (v) It is of relevant to note that the posts in the FFDA have been continued by the State of Assam as an ongoing regular function of the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam. (Nurjamal Sarkar) Minister, Fisheries, Assam” (v) It is of relevant to note that the posts in the FFDA have been continued by the State of Assam as an ongoing regular function of the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam. However, unfortunately, the FFDA is still continued in the plan sector of the Government of Assam. The reason being that the FFDA is an agency and the said Scheme is run as a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This Court would deal with the reason assigned by the Finance Department, at a later stage of the present judgment. (C) At the end of the Five Year Plan: Historically it would be seen when a Five Year Plan ends, the State Government reviews all plan posts and decides which are required to be continued and normalized into regular establishments and which ones to be discontinued. This aspect is seen in the guidelines issued for classification of expenditure for the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-12) wherein under the caption "Centrally Sponsored Scheme" guidelines were laid for committed Non-Plan expenditure. The relevant clauses have been already referred to hereinabove. The proposals so submitted by the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam also relies upon the said guidelines as would be seen from the contents of the proposals submitted which have been quoted hereinabove. (D) When Central funding share is withdrawn: It is also important to note that when in respect to a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, the Centre funds a portion and the State funds the rest and the Centre withdraws or reduces its shares, the State absorbs the posts entirely into its own establishment through normalisation. The Petitioners have categorically pleaded at Paragraph No.18 of the writ petition that the State of Assam have absorbed 1087 Nos. of posts under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme even after their discontinuance from service vide U/O Endorsement from Finance (Budget) Department dated 19.07.2008 to the Health and Family Welfare Department. However, the Petitioners who were working in the FFDA were left out. There is no denial of such statements by the Finance Department in their affidavit, rather they at paragraph No. 5 of their affidavit only mentioned “no comments”. However, the Petitioners who were working in the FFDA were left out. There is no denial of such statements by the Finance Department in their affidavit, rather they at paragraph No. 5 of their affidavit only mentioned “no comments”. During the course of hearing, it was also brought to the attention of this Court that those contractually appointed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) which is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, the Government of Assam took a decision in the year 2024 to create 35,000 fresh vacancies for regular teachers. 37. The above circumstances analyzed are some of the circumstances when plan posts are normalised to Non-Plan/State Plan posts. Let this Court now deal with the reason assigned why the proposals of the Fishery Department to normalize the FFDA posts were rejected by the Finance Department of the Government of Assam. Annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.2 (Finance Department) is the rejection of the proposal for normalisation/provincialisation of the posts of the FFDA. The reason assigned is that FFDA is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 38. The question arises as to whether such reason is at all tenable or for that matter, whether the reason assigned as just to deny the normalisation of the posts so that the State need not provide the benefits to the persons manning the posts in the FFDA, the rights and privileges otherwise granted to a regular Government servant. 39. In the opinion of this Court, the reason assigned by the Finance Department to reject the proposal for normalisation is arbitrary, unlawful, unreasonable and suffers from malice in law. This Court opines so for the following reasons: (A) FFDA admittedly was a Central Sector Scheme at its initiation. Thereupon, the FFDA became a Centrally Sponsored Scheme that too at the request of the State Government. After 1997, the FFDA has been in absolute control of the State Government. Some posts were created initially in 1970s by the Government of India and retained by the State Government. Again in 1980s, the posts were created by the State Government and have been retained. Merely because of the fact that the FFDA is run in every District as a society at the instance of the State Government would not disentitle the posts in the FFDA to be brought under the regular employment of the State. Again in 1980s, the posts were created by the State Government and have been retained. Merely because of the fact that the FFDA is run in every District as a society at the instance of the State Government would not disentitle the posts in the FFDA to be brought under the regular employment of the State. (B) Secondly, the activities carried out by the FFDA are regular Governmental functions as is endorsed by the Administrative Department i.e. the Fishery Department. Under such circumstances, to continue the posts in FFDA for the last 40-50 years as plan posts thereby depriving the officers and staffs working in the FFDA from the benefits of a regular Government servant is absolutely arbitrary. (C) A perusal of the Regulations of one of the FFDA society would show that the State of Assam exercises not only a pervasive control but a complete control over the affairs of the society. Under such circumstances to deny the benefits of normalisation on the ground that the FFDA is a society is misconceived and goes against the very concept of normalisation of posts. 40. The reasons above assigned would therefore show that the rejection of the proposal to normalise the posts in the FFDA to State Plan posts by the Finance Department is arbitrary, unreasonable and suffers from malice in law. However, it is equally important to note that how the State would administer its Departments are absolutely within the domain of the State Government. Interference in such respect by the Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review would be transgressing in the powers reserved upon the State by the Constitution. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that this Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the State to normalize the posts in FFDA and bring them within the fold of the State Plan. 41. Now, therefore, the question arises as to whether the Petitioners who have been and/or were rendering service in the FFDA are entitled to any relief. The materials on record as well as the opinion rendered herein would show that the State Government most arbitrarily and unreasonably kept the Petitioners in Plan Posts and State Government ought to have converted the posts held by the Petitioners to Non Plan/State Plan posts. The materials on record as well as the opinion rendered herein would show that the State Government most arbitrarily and unreasonably kept the Petitioners in Plan Posts and State Government ought to have converted the posts held by the Petitioners to Non Plan/State Plan posts. The materials on record also show that the Petitioners have already rendered decades of service in the FFDA without being brought within the fold of the regular services of the State. In this respect, it is apposite to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) wherein the Supreme Court categorically opined that keeping persons under employment by the State as ad-hoc or temporary for years violates the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Taking into consideration the facts involved herein, this Court reproduces the Paragraph Nos. 11, 13, 17 and 18 of the judgment in the case of Dharam Singh (supra) herein below: “ 11. Furthermore, it must be clarified that the reliance placed by the High Court on Umadevi (Supra) to non-suit the appellants is misplaced. Unlike Umadevi (Supra), the challenge before us is not an invitation to bypass the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is a challenge to the State's arbitrary refusals to sanction posts despite the employer's own acknowledgement of need and decades of continuous reliance on the very workforce. On the other hand, Umadevi (Supra) draws a distinction between illegal appointments and irregular engagements and does not endorse the perpetuation of precarious employment where the work itself is permanent and the State has failed, for years, to put its house in order. Recent decisions of this Court in Jaggo v. Union of India and in Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad have emphatically cautioned that Umadevi (Supra) cannot be deployed as a shield to justify exploitation through long-term “ad hocism”, the use of outsourcing as a proxy, or the denial of basic parity where identical duties are exacted over extended periods. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder: “ 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. The principles articulated therein apply with full force to the present case. The relevant paras from Shripal (supra) have been reproduced hereunder: “ 14. The Respondent Employer places reliance on Umadevi (supra) to contend that daily-wage or temporary employees cannot claim permanent absorption in the absence of statutory rules providing such absorption. However, as frequently reiterated, Uma Devi itself distinguishes between appointments that are “illegal” and those that are “irregular,” the latter being eligible for regularization if they meet certain conditions. More importantly, Uma Devi cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment. Given the record which shows no true contractor-based arrangement and a consistent need for permanent horticultural staff the alleged asserted ban on fresh recruitment, though real, cannot justify indefinite daily-wage status or continued unfair practices. 15. It is manifest that the Appellant Workmen continuously rendered their services over several years, sometimes spanning more than a decade. Even if certain muster rolls were not produced in full, the Employer's failure to furnish such records-despite directions to do so- allows an adverse inference under well-established labour jurisprudence. Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily- wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature. Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to recall the broader critique of indefinite “temporary” employment practices as done by a recent judgment of this court in Jaggo v. Union of India in the following paragraphs: “22. The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations. ……… 25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”” 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.”” 13. As we have observed in both Jaggo (Supra) and Shripal (Supra), outsourcing cannot become a convenient shield to perpetuate precariousness and to sidestep fair engagement practices where the work is inherently perennial. The Commission's further contention that the appellants are not “full-time” employees but continue only by virtue of interim orders also does not advance their case. That interim protection was granted precisely because of the long history of engagement and the pendency of the challenge to the State's refusals. It neither creates rights that did not exist nor erases entitlements that may arise upon a proper adjudication of the legality of those refusals. 17. Before concluding, we think it necessary to recall that the State (here referring to both the Union and the State governments) is not a mere market participant but a constitutional employer. It cannot balance budgets on the backs of those who perform the most basic and recurring public functions. Where work recurs day after day and year after year, the establishment must reflect that reality in its sanctioned strength and engagement practices. The long-term extraction of regular labour under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration and offends the promise of equal protection. Financial stringency certainly has a place in public policy, but it is not a talisman that overrides fairness, reason and the duty to organise work on lawful lines. 18. Moreover, it must necessarily be noted that “ad-hocism” thrives where administration is opaque. The State Departments must keep and produce accurate establishment registers, muster rolls and outsourcing arrangements, and they must explain, with evidence, why they prefer precarious engagement over sanctioned posts where the work is perennial. If “constraint” is invoked, the record should show what alternatives were considered, why similarly placed workers were treated differently, and how the chosen course aligns with Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 42. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above quoted paragraphs squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Sensitivity to the human consequences of prolonged insecurity is not sentimentality. It is a constitutional discipline that should inform every decision affecting those who keep public offices running.” 42. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above quoted paragraphs squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the opinion of this Court, the State Government have acted arbitrarily in keeping the Petitioners outside the regular services of the State that too without any valid reasons. There is no denial of the facts that the work rendered by the Petitioners are regular ongoing Governmental functions of the State. In fact, the Fishery Department of the Government of Assam had in fact pleaded the said aspect. Apart from that, the facts discussed and analyzed above would show that the Respondents most unreasonably discriminated the Petitioners with other similarly situated persons earlier working in Centrally Sponsored Schemes inasmuch as, those similarly situated persons have been brought within the fold of the regular Government employment. The above acts of depriving the Petitioners violates the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 43. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the submissions so made by the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Finance Department and more particularly the reference made to the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dhyan Singh (supra) and Parmeshwar Nanda (supra) . It is the opinion of this Court that the said judgments are not applicable to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as, though the Petitioners herein were initially appointed in the Central Sector Scheme or the Centrally Sponsored Scheme but upon the transfer of the Scheme to the State of Assam, they were continued under the absolute control of the State of Assam and they were paid from the coffers of the State Exchequer. Further to that, these Petitioners upon being continued in services rendered their services which were in the nature of regular Governmental functions of the State of Assam. 44. It is also very pertinent at this stage to mention that the State of Assam have regularized various ad-hoc, temporary employees in pursuance to the directions passed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. 44. It is also very pertinent at this stage to mention that the State of Assam have regularized various ad-hoc, temporary employees in pursuance to the directions passed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma devi reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and more particularly the directions at Paragraph No. 53. However, the Petitioners who were appointed to sanctioned posts under the Scheme after due selection were left out merely on the ground that the normalization of such posts were not permissible as FFDA was run by societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said reason assigned, as opined above, is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and suffers from malice in law. 45. It may not also be out of place to mention that the admitted stand of the parties is that the Petitioners have been paid the salaries as received by the regular Government servants of the State of Assam. Annexure-I to the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.4 also shows that the General Provident Funds were deducted from the Petitioners. The above would therefore show that only to deprive the Petitioners certain benefits which a regular Government servant enjoys i.e. Pension, Provident Fund, Health Insurance, Paid Leave, Terminal Benefits etc. which are in the nature of severity to the employed and their family members. The deprivations to the Petitioners violates the mandate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 46. In view of the above discussion and analysis, it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioners herein are entitled to appropriate directions of regularization along with consequential benefits similar to the directions so passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh (supra). CONCLUSION: 47. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) The Respondents herein and more particularly the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to regularize the services of the Petitioners w.e.f. 27.07.2007 i.e. the date on which the proposal was submitted by the Director of Fishery for normalization of the FFDA posts to the State Plan Posts. The said exercise be carried out by creating supernumerary posts against each of the Petitioners within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the present judgment. The said exercise be carried out by creating supernumerary posts against each of the Petitioners within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the present judgment. (ii) It is observed and directed that while regularizing the services of the Petitioners as directed above, they should be provided with protection of their pay and allowances. (iii) As it is the specific case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners are getting the scale of pay as is given to the regular Government employees of equal status, there shall not be any requirement of payment of any amount towards arrears upon regularisation. However, it is observed and directed that upon regularisation w.e.f 27.07.2007, the services of the Petitioners would be counted for all other service benefits viz. pension, leave encashment, gratuity and other terminal dues which is enjoyed by the a regular Government employee of equal status. (iv) This Court duly notes that some of the Petitioners have in the meantime retired. They would also be entitled to all benefits as have been directed in the preceding Clauses. In addition to the above, these retired Petitioners would be entitled to pension, leave encashment, gratuity and other terminal benefits. The arrears of the same be paid within 6 (six) months of the present judgment. (v) This Court further directs that in the circumstances, if any of the Petitioners have expired, their family members would be entitled to all such benefits which the family members of a regular Government servant enjoys of equal status appointed as on 27.07.2007. (vi) The Commissioner and Secretary of both the Fishery Department as well as the Finance Department shall file compliance affidavits to the aforesaid directions within 8 (eight) months from the date of the present judgment. (vii) No costs. 48. Before parting with the records, this Court finds it relevant to observe for the sake of clarity that as this Court had held that the rejection of the proposal by the Finance Department to normalize the FFDA to the State Plan to be arbitrary, unreasonable and suffering from malice in law, the directions issued hereinabove shall not preclude the State of Assam to convert the FFDA posts to the State Plan/Non-Plan Post, if felt necessary for administrative reasons.