The Lt.Governor And ORS. v. Shri.Mohan Rao And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] *** WP.CT/21/2026 The Lt. Governor and others Vs Shri. Mohan Rao and others Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. S. Naidu ... for the petitioners Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Ms. K. Bhawani Ms. Sohini Biswas ... for the respondents April 22, 2026 [SR] Item No.6 1.

The present challenge arises against the judgement of the Port Blair Circuit Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, whereby the learned Tribunal directed the appellantauthorities to consider the case of the applicants/ respondents for regularization in service with effect from June 4, 2015 as per rules with due consideration of the fact that they have been performing perennial nature of duties with effect from 2015, in case they are still continuing in service, and further directed the present appellants to pass appropriate orders in that regard and communicate the decision to the applicants/ respondents within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Tribunal's order. It was further clarified that the period of their earlier service before 2015 shall not be taken into consideration for the purpose of regularization, since they were found unsuccessful in their written examination.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that there were previous rounds of litigation.

3.

By an order dated December 23, 2014 passed in OA 351/00166/AN/2014, the Tribunal had observed that no direction can be issued upon the respondents therein (authorities) to consider the case of the applicants (private respondents herein) for reinstatement. However, since the representation had been made on the ground that the petitioners had crossed the maximum age of consideration and their financial condition had worsened and it would affect the education of their children, it was left to the wisdom of the authorities to grant appropriate benefits to the said applicants as compensation, if possible, by engaging the applicants on Daily Rated Basis.

4.

It is argued that having once conceded to the position that the appointment would be as Daily Rated Mazdoor, the private respondents could not have preferred afresh the subsequent original application seeking regularisation. 5.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have been discharging their services since 2015 and are even now carrying on similar kinds of jobs. 6.

The nature of service rendered by the private respondents, it is submitted, is akin to that of regular employees. Moreover, in view of the perennial nature of the work done by the private respondents, it is argued that they are entitled to regularisation.

7.

Insofar as the previous order of the Tribunal dated December 23, 2014 is concerned, learned counsel argues that the relief sought there was merely reinstatement and not

regularisation. Accordingly, it is submitted that such previous order of the Tribunal cannot debar the respondents from preferring a fresh Original Application before the Tribunal seeking regularisation.

8.

On a perusal of the earlier order of the Tribunal of the year 2014, we find that the scope of relief sought therein was different from the present instance, not being regularisation. The prayer in the earlier Original Application was quoted by the Tribunal in the order dated December 23, 2014, which was to examine the case of the applicants by the respondents and to pass appropriate order considering their qualifying in the written test, four years' service rendered by them in the past and that they became overage while serving the department and the selection process had not been scrapped till date. 9.

Within such limited conspectus, the Tribunal had, taking into consideration the plight of the applicants, directed a consideration by the authorities for the purpose of granting appropriate benefits as compensation and, if possible, to engage them on Daily Rated Basis.

10.

Thus, the relief sought in the current original application was not the subject matter of the earlier proceeding and, as such, the prayer for regularisation cannot be said to have been barred by the principle of res judicata.

11.

Even the principle of constructive res judicata would not apply on the more fundamental premise that in view of the present private respondents having continuously being working, the nature of the cause of action is a continuing one and the

principle of res judicata/constructive res judicata is not applicable.

12.

That apart, we find from the operative portion of the current impugned order that the learned Tribunal merely directed the appellate authorities to consider the case of the applicants/private respondents for regularisation in service with effect from June 04, 2015 as per the rules, with due consideration of the fact that they have been performing perennial nature of duties with effect from 2015, if they are still continuing in service.

13.

Thus, it would be premature at this stage to interfere, since the Tribunal has not finally adjudicated the rights and contentions of the parties vis-à-vis regularisation but has merely directed a consideration by the appellant authorities, that too in the light of the perennial nature of the duties being performed by the applicants/private respondents as well as in terms of the rules.

14.

We do not find any glairing miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of law or any patent jurisdictional error in such direction, to justify interference by this Court in its prerogative writ jurisdiction under Article of the Constitution of India.

15.

In such view of the matter, WP.CT/21/2026 is dismissed on contest without any order as to costs. However, we amply clarify that we have not touched upon or adjudicated on the merits of the prayer of the private respondents for regularization and it will be open to the appellant-authorities to act in terms of

the direction of the Tribunal and to consider the case of the private respondents in the light of the observations made in the impugned judgement.

16.

There will be no order as to costs.

17.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Smita Das De, J.)