Rahul Deo Maurya And ORS v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/21/2024 Rahul Deo Maurya and others Vs.

The Union of India and others With WP.CT/23/2024 S.S.Senthil and others Vs.

The Union of India and others Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioners Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the respondents June 24, 2024 [SR] Item Nos.12 & 13 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has challenged an order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has directed merely affidavits to be filed by the respondents. It is further submitted that on the strength of the annexures to the writ petition, which are also annexed to the Tribunal application, the petitioners have made out a strong case for getting the benefits of confirmation, ACP and MACP, having already given 22 years of service to the Administration. That apart, one Smt T. Leena, who stands on equal footing as the petitioners, have already been given such benefits, although only after the said T. Leena filed an application for contempt.

Accordingly, instead of waiting for the Tribunal to decide the matter, it is prayed that this Court may grant similar benefits to the petitioners.

Upon a perusal of the impugned order, we find that no case has been decided either in favour of or against any of the parties by the Tribunal as yet.

The respondents rightly submit that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is the designated forum for deciding such issues, ought not to be taken away by deciding the merits of the case in this writ petition.

By the impugned order, the Tribunal has merely waived notice on the respondents and kept it open for the respondents to consider in the meantime the pending representation of the applicants.

As such, in the event we enter into the merits of the claim of the petitioners and decide the issues on fact, it would be usurping the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and depriving both the parties of a forum.

Learned counsel for the respondents controverts all the allegations made by the petitioners. It is submitted that due to exigent circumstances, no consideration of the representation of the petitioners could be undertaken in the meantime. We find that since the Administration has repeatedly failed to consider the petitioners' representation as per the observations of the Tribunal till date, despite having been given opportunity to do so even before this court, there is no further requirement for the Tribunal to wait for the consideration of the representation of the applicants further.

In any event, if no affidavits have been filed before the Tribunal as yet, there is no further reason why the matter should be protracted even longer awaiting the filing of such affidavits by the concerned Administration.

Accordingly, WP.CT/21/2024 and WP.CT/23/2024 are disposed of by directing the respondents to file affidavit-inopposition, if any, positively within a week from date. If so filed, the petitioners shall file reply, if any, within a week thereafter. After a fortnight from date, even if no affidavits are filed, the matter shall be proceeded with by the Tribunal (without such affidavits if not filed) by considering the petitioners' claim on merits, instead of relegating the matter further for the consideration of representation of the petitioners by the Administration. The Tribunal shall decide the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible, keeping in view of the plight of the petitioners, positively within six weeks from date. It is made clear that the merits of the matter have not been entered into by this court and it will be open for the Tribunal to decide the issue in accordance with law.

[ Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.] [ Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.]