Smti. Indira v. Smti. Madhuri Shukla And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CPAN/34/2025 Smti. Indira Vs.

Smti. Madhuri Shukla and Another Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Shipra Mandal ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondents February 09, 2026 [SR] Item No.3 The issue involved is fixation of pensionary benefits that are payable to the petitioner.

It appears that the petitioner was initially engaged as Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM). She was regularized from September 30, 2009. Dispute arose regarding the petitioner's pensionary benefits. To cut a long story short, a Coordinate Bench, by a judgment and order dated April 09, 2013, passed in WPCT/666/2012, directed as follows:- "It is not in dispute that immediately before their retrenchment, they were acting as DRMs and in view of the observations made by the Tribunal, it appears that all of them would have become eligible for being considered for regularization of their service with the respondent authorities. It was in implementation of the Award that the steps have been taken for creation of posts and absorption of such DRMs and TSMs.

We feel that if the said petitioners have worked continuously for a period of more than ten years and since some of them had already put in considerable period from their date of initial engagement and would be retiring shortly, considering the constitutional obligations and duties cast upon the said respondent authorities it would be just and fair that for the purpose of retiral benefits their service should be counted from the date of their respective joining/engagement and not from the date of regularisation. The services of the petitioners also does not found to be unsatisfactory. A seniority list has been prepared also on the basis of their initial engagement.

the Constitution and fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The authorities concerned acting as model employer in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances are required to extend such benefits to such employees. The writ petition succeeds only to the extent that the petitioners shall be deemed to be in service from the date of actual engagement only for the purpose of retiral and pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose."

Although the Administration has fixed the pensionary benefit of the petitioner, according to her, the fixation is not in terms of the order of the Division Bench. As per the Division Bench order, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service from the date of actual engagement for the purpose of retiral and pensionary benefits. However, the pensionary benefits that have been fixed, are on the basis that the petitioner is in service from the date of regularisation of the petitioner and not from the actual date of engagement which was much prior in point of time. Hence, this contempt application has been taken out by the petitioner alleging willful violation of the judgment and order dated April 09, 2013.

Learned advocate for the petitioner says that the notional increments have not been taken into by the Administration in fixation of the pensionary benefits. Such increments will have to be taken into consideration from the date of actual engagement of the petitioner.

Learned advocate for the alleged contemnors says that since the petitioner was engaged as DRM, no notional increment based on any scale of pay can be calculated. We are unable to agree with the contention of learned advocate for the alleged contemnors. Since the Coordinate Bench had directed that for the purpose of retiral and

pensionary benefits, the petitioner shall be deemed to be in service from the actual of date of engagement, the Administration will have to proceed on the basis that on the actual date of engagement, the petitioner was engaged a a regular employee, notionally apply the relevant scale of pay and on that basis compute the increments from time to time. Only if the petitioner's pensionary benefit is computed in this manner, will the same be in consonance with the direction of the Coordinate Bench in the order dated April 09, 20213. Certain decisions have been cited before us. We do not think, it is necessary to deal with the decisions. Each decision turns on its own peculiar facts. However, one view seems to have been consistently taken by various High Courts, i.e.

, if a person has been engaged either as a DRM or a contractual employee for an appreciable period of time and then regularized, the pensionary benefits will have to be computed taking into consideration the actual date of engagement and not the date of regularisation to determine the length of service. We are of the view that the alleged contemnors may have had some misconception about the law and may not have fully understood the true purport of the order dated April 09, 2023. We do not think that they have willfully violated the order and therefore, the question of holding them guilty for contempt of court does not arise. However, we direct the alleged contemnors and concerned officers in the Administration to compute the petitioner's pensionary benefits in the manner as indicated above.

Let such exercise be completed within two months from the date of communication of this order by the petitioner to the alleged contemnors.

CPAN/34/2025 is disposed of.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)