Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
(Ruhit Tapader vs Union Of India And Others) on 23 April, 2025
Author: Rajasekhar Mantha
Bench: Rajasekhar Mantha
23.04.2025
Court No.13
Item No.4-23
ap
WP.CT 283 of 2024
(Ruhit Tapader -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 284 of 2024
(Gora Chand Das -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 285 of 2024
(Sisir Kr. Saha -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 286 of 2024
(Gabinda Munshi -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 287 of 2024
(Sibnath Mitra -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 288 of 2024
(Raju Chhetri -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 289 of 2024
(Maniklal Das Khaskel -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 290 of 2024
(Shambhu Nath Chakraborty -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 291 of 2024
(Arup Adhikary -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 292 of 2024
(Manas Dey -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 293 of 2024
(Santu Kumar Das -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 294 of 2024
(Manik Lal Das -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 295 of 2024
(Palan Kumar Halder -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 296 of 2024
(Panchanan Mondal -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 297 of 2024
(Saila Bala Nayak -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 298 of 2024
(Jhantu Kumar Shit -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 299 of 2024
(Partha Das -Vs.- Union of India and others)
2
With
WP.CT 300 of 2024
(Parimal Roy -Vs.- Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 301 of 2024
(Probir Seal -Vs. -Union of India and others)
With
WP.CT 302 of 2024
(Rupam Biswas -Vs.- Union of India and others)
Mr. Ujjal Ray,
Mr. Arpa Chakraborty.
... For the petitioner in all these matters.
Mr. Swapan Kumar Nandi,
Ms. Banani Bhattacharya.
... For the respondents in all these matters.
1. By consent of the parties, the aforesaid writ
petitions are taken up for hearing analogously and
disposed of by a common order.
2. The challenge in these writ petitions is a judgment
and order dated 26th February, 2024 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata.
3. The impugned decision before the Tribunal was
dated 7th October, 2022 whereby the Praser Bharati
Doordarshan Kendra at Kolkata on direction from the
Central Administrative Tribunal at Kolkata in O.A. No.
677 of 2020 came to consider the claims of the applicants
for regularization of service under a Scheme of the
respondents.
4. By the said impugned order dated 7th October,
2022, the case of the applicants for regularization of
service was rejected. The reasoning of the respondents in
3
the impugned order dated 7th October, 2022 was that
only 22 applicants had completed 240 days but were not
engaged in any specific or sanctioned vacant post. The
writ petitioners do not fall under the category of iregular
appointees as they were engaged purely on casual basis
for doing sundry work. Their eligibility was not examined
with reference to any Recruitment Rules to the post in
which they were engaged.
5. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal applying
the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Union of India – Vs. – K. C. Mondal reported in
(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 422, a Constitution
Bench decision in the case of Secretary, State of
Karnataka & Ors. -Vs. – Uma Devi (III) reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1, the case of University of Delhi – Vs. –
Delhi University Contract Employees reported in
(2021) SCC OnLine SC 256 and in the case of State of
Rajasthan & Ors. – Vs. – Daya Lal & Ors. reported in
(2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 429, could not find fault
with the impugned order dated 7th October, 2022.
6. This Court finds that the impugned order dated 7th
October, 2022 was passed after several rounds of
litigation before the Tribunal. The petitioners and each of
them and/or their representatives were duly heard. The
reasons provided in the impugned order for rejecting the
claim for regularization was that it was not in terms of
4
the Scheme of the Praser Bharati for regularization of
casual employees. The impugned order appears to be
based on evidence considered by the respondents and
does not appear to be perverse.
7. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. Mr. Ray, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the applicants in all these writ petitions has placed
reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Jaggo – Vs. – Union of India & Ors.
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826. He submits that
a case for regularization rejected by the Central
Administrative Tribunal and upheld by Delhi High Court
was allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
similar facts and circumstances. He, therefore, submits
that the petitioners also ought to be regularized based on
the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Jaggo (supra).
9. This Court is of the view that the petitioners have
raised disputed questions of facts which cannot be gone
into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
10. A three Judge Bench of this Court at paragraph 34
in the case of Awadhesh Singh – Vs. – Union of India
5
& Ors. reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Cal 9458 has
held as follows:-
34. We are of the opinion that when
regularization/absorption and/or
reinstatement/continuance is sought in the
service of the Eastern Railway, the Central
Administrative Tribunal will have the jurisdiction
and as per provisions of section 28 of the Act of
1985, the matter can also be filed before the
Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court, as the
case may be. Section 28 does not oust such
jurisdiction of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, it gives option to the workman to
choose the forum.
11. Mr. Ujjal Ray seeks leave of this Court to move the
authorities under the Act of 1947. This Court is of the
view that the petitioners may be in a better position to
demonstrate by trial on evidence before the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata for assailing the
impugned order dated 7th October, 2022, on facts and are
hereby permitted to do so.
12. The other argument advanced by Mr. Ray, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in all these
writ petitions, that the respondents are seeking to engage
the other casual employees in place and stead of the
petitioners and that the same is in violation of the dicta
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Hargurpratap Singh – Vs. – State of Punjab & Ors.
reported in (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 292 may
be agitated in appropriate proceedings, inter alia, as
indicated hereinabove.
6
13. It is made clear that in the event, the petitioners
choose to approach the Authorities under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, the observations of the Tribunal in
the impugned order and of this Court herein, shall not
stand in the way of any independent finding and/or
decision by such authorities. In other words, the said
authorities under the Act of 1947 shall be entitled to
proceed strictly in accordance with applicable law
uninfluenced by any of the observations of Central
Administrative Tribunal or this Court.
14. With the aforesaid observations, this Court holds
that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in these
aforesaid writ petitions. They are disposed of without any
orders.
15. There will be no order as to costs.
16. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of
this order duly downloaded from the official website of
this Court.
(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)
[ad_1]
Source link