The Lt.Governor And ORS v. D.C.Subramanyam And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA WPCT/10/2026 THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND OTHERS ... PETITIONERS VS.
D.C.SUBRAMANYAM AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the petitioners :
Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the respondents :
Mr. P.C.Das [through virtual mode] Heard on :
February 16, 2026 Delivered on :
February 16, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
1.
The writ petitioners assail an order dated August 21, 2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Kolkata Bench (Circuit Bench at Port Blair) in OA/351/66/2016.
2.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, out of 17 respondents, excepting 3, all were directly recruited in the year 2009 when, the new pension scheme was in operation. He submits that, therefore, the direction contained in the impugned order requiring the authorities to pay the 14 employees who were directly recruited at the Old Pension Scheme, is wrong. He seeks setting aside of such direction.
3.
Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the private respondents are entitled to pension under the old scheme as when their initial appointment was granted, there was no post sanctioned. 4.
Respondents are represented.
5.
We find from the records that, the respondents approached the Tribunal for various reliefs with regard to their appointment. Essentially, all the respondents were
Daily Rated Mazdoors. They were appointed to regular post after April 01, 2004. The New Pension Scheme came into effect subsequent to April 01, 2004.
6.
The learned Tribunal, took into consideration the initial dates of appointment of all the respondents. Learned Tribunal found that, each of the respondents were initially appointed as Daily Rated Mazdoors.
They were subsequently regularized.
7.
In fact, some of the respondents herein, participated in a regular selection process and were appointed through such process. Taking such facts into consideration, learned Tribunal found that, the seniority inter se the private respondents were already settled. Learned Tribunal also found that the seniority was adjusted on the basis of the initial date of appointment. Learned Tribunal did not disturb the gradation list or the seniority list on such ground.
8.
Once, the private respondents are found to be initially appointed at a date prior to April 01, 2004 and once, it is
found that their seniority list is fixed by taking into consideration their period of service from their initial date of appointment, we do not find that the learned Tribunal erred in directing the authorities to extend the benefit of the pension scheme prevailing as on the date of the initial appointment of the private respondents. In all fairness, the private respondents are entitled to their pension in accordance with the pension scheme as prevailing as on the date of their initial appointment.
9.
We find from the records that, so far as the employment of the private respondents are concerned, they were allowed to be regularized. In fact, as noted above, some of the private respondents participated in a direct recruitment process and were given appointment.
10. There is nothing on record to suggest that any of the private respondents opted for the new pension scheme subsequent to the new pension scheme coming into effect.
11. None of the private respondents opted out the old pension scheme.
12. In view of the discussions above, we find no merit in the present writ petition.
13. WP.CT/10/2026 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)
14. I agree.
(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)