The Union Of India v. Shri. Yousuf Khan And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON'BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE HON'BLE JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA WP.CT/50/2025 Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor and others ... Petitioners Vs.

Shri Yousuf Khan and another ... Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the Respondents : Mrs. Anjili Nag, Senior Advocate Ms. K. Sneha With WP.CT/1/2026 The Union of India and others ... Petitioners Vs.

Shri Yousuf Khan and another ... Respondents For the petitioners : Mr. V.D.Sivabalan For the Respondents : Mrs. Anjili Nag, Senior Advocate Ms. K. Sneha Heard on : 13.01.2026 Judgment on : 13.01.2026 ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.

1.

Two writ petitions in the form of judicial review are taken up together for hearing as they relate to the same matter.

WPCT/50/2025 which is first in order of time is a writ petition filed by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration wherein Shri Yousuf Khan is the respondent. The subject matter of challenge in this writ petition is an order dated 04.09.2025 passed in CP/21/2020 (Port Blair) filed in OA/146/2011. The Original Application (OA) application was filed by the respondents in the instant writ petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench at Port Blair (in short Tribunal). The portion of the order dated 04.09.2024 which is under challenge in this writ petition is set out here under:

"As the Dy. Director Education (Perl.) with the approval of the competent authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner, by way of last chance, the competent authority is directed to comply with the order dtd.

21.12.2018 passed by this Tribunal in OA/146/A&N/2011 and to make appropriate submission by the next date of hearing.

List the matter before the next Circuit Bench."

2.

It is apparent on a mere reading of the said order dated 4th Sept. 2024, that the same is not a final order but an interim direction for compliance of the Tribunal's previous order dated 21.12.2018.

3.

In WPCT/1/2026, the Union of India as the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.2018 by which OA/146/A&N/2011 had been finally disposed of and the order dated 01.12.2023 passed in CP/21/2020 (Port Blair) filed in OA/146/2021.

4.

To understand the scope of the aforesaid two writ petitions, the relevant facts are elucidated hereinafter. (i) The respondent had passed XIth standard examination in 1976 which under the present system is called Higher Secondary i.e. passing in XIIth standard examination. The respondent thereafter obtained a Diploma in Music from Banaras Hindu University (in short BHU) in 1979. (ii) The respondent was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-6-290-E3-6-326-366-E3-8-390-10-400 (hereinafter referred to as the Initial Pay Scale) in August, 1984. The designation of the respondent was Craft Instructor. (iii) Prior to the appointment of the respondent and five others as Craft Instructor, the A&N Administration had proposed revision of the scale of pay of Junior Teachers in Craft, language, Music, Dance, Physical Education and Domestic Science from Rs. 425-640 to Rs. 440-750 as will appear from the memo dated 24th July, 1982 subject to approval by the Ministry.

(iv) Since upgradation of scale was not effected in respect of 67 teachers including the respondent, the said teachers filed an application before the Tribunal in 1993 being OA No. 8/A&N/93. This application was disposed of by an

order dated 10.04.1995 the operative portion whereof is as follows:- "6. In view of the above discussion we dispose of this application with the direction that the respondents shall within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order enhance the pay scale of the applicants in terms of the Govt. of India's order No. 5-44//82-Sch.6 dated 27.03.1982 and also in terms of the letter of the respondents at Annexure-Q to the application being Memo No.

3/27/86/-D.III dated 21.1.92.

Consequently, the revised pay scale under the 4th Pay Commission should also be given to the applicants along with all the arrears as may be due to them. We pass no order as to costs." It will also appear from the said order that the applicants therein including the respondent were treated as Junior Teacher though the applicant was engaged as Craft Instructors.

(v) The Ministry of Human Recourses, Department of Education, Govt. of India by an office order dated 1st March, 1996 had approved the upgradation of pay scale of the applicants only as per the order of the Tribunal by providing budgetary allocation for the same.

(vi) By an office order dated 19th March, 1996 being No. 917, the A&N Administration gave effect to upgradation of scale of pay but the same according to the respondent and some others was not in line with the order of the Tribunal and as such a representation was filed on 22.05.1996. (vii) Pursuant to such representation the Directorate of Education, according to the respondent in deviation to the order of the Tribunal divided the 67 applicants into two

groups by an order dated 8th October, 2000. This order was challenged in OA No. 53/A&N/2000. This application was disposed of by an order dated 20.09.2000 the operative portion whereof is set out hereunder:- "2. In the light of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel of both sides the application is disposed of at the stage of admission itself with a direction upon the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants at Annexure 'O' in consultation with the respondent No.1 and to dispose of them with a speaking and reasoned order within one month from the date of communication of this order. No. costs."

(viii) Subsequently, by an office order dated 06.09.2005 being No. 3949, the A&N administration refused to grant the ungraded scale to the respondent citing the reason that it will be contrary to the norms and the rules. (ix) Ultimately the respondent was compelled to file OA 146 of 2011 seeking implementation of the upgraded scale of pay. This application was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the same being MA 33 of 2011. The two applications were disposed of by an order dated 12.10.2015. The order dated 12.10.2015 was set aside by the Court vide order dated 23.01.2017 in WPCT/492/2016 and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal.

(x) On remand the application being OA 146 of 2011 stood dismissed as the condonation of delay prayed for in MA 33

of 2011 was not allowed. The order of dismissal is dated 26.06.2018. The said order dated 26.06.2018 was set aside by this Court by an order dated 26.11.2018 passed in WPCT 186 of 2018 and the Tribunal was directed to hear out the matter on merits.

(xi) OA 146 of 2011 was finally disposed of by an order dated 21.12.2018 the operative portion whereof is set out hereunder:

"11. Hence it is ordered that the respondents shall consider the grievances of the present applicants in the light of the orders passed by this Tribunal in the first round i.e. in O.A.8 of 1993 which has already attained finality being not reversed on appeal and stands good till this date, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law while granting the benefits to the applicants in terms of the order passed in 1995, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."

(xii) The respondent filed a contempt application before the Tribunal for implementation of the order date 21.12.2018 passed in OA No. 146 of 2011. The contempt petition was numbered as CPC 351/21/2020.

5.

After hearing the parties and considering the facts as aforesaid which are borne out of the material on records, we find that the matter has a chequered history. This is the fourth round of litigation before this Court. The writ petition filed by the A & N Administration as noted hereinabove is against an interim order.

The portion under challenge only directs the Administration to comply with the order dated 21.12.2018.

6.

On a holistic reading of the order dated 10.04.1995 passed by the learned Tribunal in OA No. 8/A&N/93 it will appear that the respondent were directed to enhance the pay scale of the applicants including the respondent herein within six months as per the respondents memo dated 27.03.1982 and 21.01.1992 after considering the objection raised by the respondents which is summoned in paragraph 3 of the said order which is set out hereunder.

"3. The case has been resisted by the respondents by filing a reply. In short, their stand is that there are different categories of Junior teachers in the Education Department, and their categorisation was based on the qualification possessed as well as the requirement of their services at different levels in the Education Department. The respondents also mentioned that the pay scales sanctioned on the basis of the 4th Pay Commission report were as follows: i) Craft Instructor in the grade of Rs. 1400-2600/- (Revised) ii) Craft Instructor in the grade of Rs. 1200-2040/- iii) Craft Instructor in the grade of Rs. 950-1500/- iv) Peripatetic Teachers in the grade of Rs. 1200-2040/- They have also mentioned the different grades viz. Grade-I and grade-II of various categories of teachers."

7.

It will also appear from the order that the applicants therein including the respondent was considered as Junior Teacher though the respondent had categorically mentioned his designation along with some other applicants as that of Craft Instructor. This order was never challenged and as such have achieved finality. The office order dated 24th July, 1982 also speaks of Junior Physical Education Teachers. The A&N Administration could not have, therefore, treated the Craft

Instructors to be of a different cadre than that of Junior Teachers particularly when their appointment as appear from office orders were in contravention of the office orders, without having the order of the Tribunal dated 10.04.1995 either reviewed to get a clarification that Craft Instructors are not to be treated as Junior Teachers or without having the said order assailed in appeal before this Court in their favour to treat a Craft Instructor to be in a different cadre from that of a Junior Teacher to disallow the benefit given by the Tribunal to the applicants therein vide order dated 10.04.1995 when some of the applicants were Craft Instructor which fact was placed before the Tribunal. That apart and in any event the respondent being a Craft Instructor has the requisite qualifications of a Junior Teacher.

The records also does not reveal that as Craft Instructor, they were not discharging the same duties as that of a Junior Teacher (Crafts). The respondent was appointed on 17th August, 1984 whereas the benefit of upgradation of scale of pay as per office order of 1982 is to be given from 05.09.1981.

passing the order dated 10.04.1995 by which the applicant was directed to give the benefit.

8.

The Tribunal has while passing the orders in contempt application have taken into consideration of the facts of the case and earlier litigations between the parties. Only after finding that the order dated 21.12.2018 has achieved finality having not been challenged for over six year, the Tribunal had directed the Administration to comply with the same in its order. That the Tribunal had taken note of the facts and figures pertaining to the instant case and thereafter had passed the said order is apparent from the face of the order, the operative portion whereof is set out hereunder.

"10. Ld. counsel Mr. Tabraiz agrees to disposal of this O.A. with a direction.

11. Hence it is ordered that the respondents shall consider the grievance of the present applicants in the light of the orders passed by this Tribunal in the first round i.e. in O.A.8 of 1993 which has already attained finality being not reversed on appeal and stands good till this date, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law while granting the benefits to the applicant in terms of the order passed in 1995, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

12. Accordingly the O.A. is disposed of. No order as to costs." 9.

It is an admitted position that this order dated 21.12.2018 was challenged by the UOI by filing two applications being MA 869/2023 and MA 640 of 2023, but the same were not

entertained on having been filed by a non party to the contempt application.

10.

Although, limitation is not strictly applicable to applications made before the Tribunal, but the same has to be made within a reasonable period of time. The reasonable period of time in respect of any application should be construed to be three years, in accordance with the provision analogous to those under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The writ petition filed by UOI challenging the orders dated 10.04.1995 and 21.12.2018 is after an inordinate delay and that too after the orders have achieved finality. This is an abuse of process even if filed under some advice or instruction. The writ petition by the A&N Administration has been filed to challenge an interim order passed by the Tribunal in a contempt proceeding. A party cannot also be allowed to challenge the order time and again as that amounts to an abuse of process.

The Tribunal had specifically directed by the order dated 21.12.2018 to grant the petitioner the scale of pay in accordance with law as directed by the order dated 10.04.1995. That order or orders could not have been re-opened by the office order dated 17th January, 2024. The Administration did not take any steps to comply with such order.

order dated 04.09.2024 was passed and on the other hand sought to re-open the issue by the order dated 17th January, 2024. Union of India though was not a party to the contempt petition but filed a review application for review of the order dated 21.12.2018 in 2023 which appears to be nothing but a dilatory tactics.

11.

The conduct of the Administration as also the Union of India in maintaining stoic silence for five years without complying with the order and then seeking to challenge the order after the contempt petition has been filed by the respondent (applicants in the Original Application as the petitioner in the Contempt Application) is not appreciated. The order of the Deputy Director Education (Perl.) dated 17th January, 2024 being order No. 111 in purported compliance of the order dated 21.12.2018 which is annexed to the writ petition is ex facie an order without jurisdiction. The authority concerned in the garb of compliance has not only reopened the settled issues after a long-long period of time but also have sat on appeal over the order of the Tribunal. The said order is as such void and is set aside and/or quashed being in teeth of the order dated 10.04.1995 and 21.12.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal.

12.

Even on facts we do not find any anomaly in the orders dated 10.04.1995, 21.12.2018, 01.12.2023 and 04.09.2024 being the subject matter of challenge in the aforesaid two writ petitions.

13.

The respondent has been running from pillar to post for his grievances being ventilated and mitigated. It had taken seven years from the filing of the original application in 2011 for the same being disposed of in 2018 by the order dated 21.12.2018. If fact in the said order it has been clearly noted that the issues were settled to rest by the order passed on 10.04.1995. 14.

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances we dismiss the two writ petitions and direct the Andaman and Nicobar Administration as also the Union of India to comply with the orders dated 10.04.1995 passed in OA No 8/A&N/1993 and that order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal in OA/146/2011.

15.

We grant three months time to the Union of India and the Administration to grant the respondent the benefit of the upgraded scale of 440-20-500-EB-25-700-EB-750 from 09.10.1995 being six months from the date of the order dated 10.04.1995 and the regular revision from the implementation of the 4th Pay Commission. The arrears shall be paid by 30th April,

2026 with interest @ 6% per annum on the arrear amount as and when the same had fallen due.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.) I agree ( DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. )