The Union Of India And ORS. v. Shri.Pradip Kumar Biswas

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/22/2026 The Union of India and others Vs.

Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the petitioners Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the respondents April 27, 2026 [SR] Item No.5 1.

The present writ petition has been preferred by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration primarily against the portion of the judgment of the Tribunal dated September 11, 2025 in OA No.351/1718/2024 whereby the Tribunal directed consequential benefits of the 1st MACP to be granted to the applicant/respondent.

2.

With regard to the 2nd MACP, since the applicant/respondent has been charge-sheeted in the year 2020, the Tribunal directed that the benefits of the 2nd MACP shall abide by the outcome of the disciplinary/criminal proceedings pending against the writ petitioner/respondent. 3.

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that insofar as the 1st MACP benefits are concerned, the applicant /respondent is entitled to the same since there is no pending criminal/disciplinary proceeding against him. 4.

Since no challenge has been preferred by the applicant/respondent against the direction of the Tribunal

that the benefit of the 2nd MACP shall abide by the outcome of the criminal/disciplinary proceedings, we do not enter into the merits of such part of the impugned judgement. Regarding the same, we merely take note of the fact that although the disciplinary proceeding has been concluded, there are still pending criminal proceedings against the respondent and, as such, the petitioner/respondent is to await the outcome of such proceeding before getting benefits under the 2nd MACP Scheme.

5.

Be that as it may, on the query of Court, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st MACP benefits have not yet been disbursed in favour of the applicant /respondent due to vigilance clearance having not yet been obtained.

6.

Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent argues that at least one year has elapsed till entitlement accrued to him under the 1st MACP Scheme and as such the applicant/respondent cannot wait indefinitely for such benefit to be granted to him.

7.

We further find from the impugned judgment that the applicant was also held by the learned Tribunal to be entitled to be confirmed from 2004 onwards and to be put under the Old Pension Scheme.

8.

Accordingly, the Court comes to the conclusion that the applicant/respondent is entitled to the benefit of the 1st MACP and he should be confirmed from 2004 onwards and

put under the Old Pension Scheme immediately. The said benefits cannot be withheld by the respondents-authorities indefinitely on the ground of pendency of vigilance clearance. 9.

We also take note of the fact that the vigilance clearance is to be obtained from one of the departments of the & N Administration itself;

hence, the interdepartmental delay within the Administration cannot be a ground for refusing legitimate benefits to the petitioner/respondent, who is otherwise entitled to the same. 10.

Accordingly, WP.CT/22/2026 is dismissed on contest. The writ petitioner no.3, that is, the Chief Secretary is directed to ensure that the vigilance clearance process of the appellant/respondent is concluded within the outer limit of three weeks from date.

11.

Upon such clearance being obtained, the writ petitioner no. 5 shall disburse the benefit under the 1st MACP Scheme to the writ petitioner/respondent within a fortnight thereafter.

12.

The petitioner no.3 shall also ensure that the applicant/respondent is confirmed from 2004 onwards and put under the Old Pension Scheme and a written communication be made to the petitioner/respondent in that regard within six weeks from date.

13.

There will be no order as to costs.

14.

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

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