R.Sundar Rao v. Ashish John
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** RVW/2/2023 IA No. CAN/1/2023, CAN/2/2023 Nitin Shakya Vs.
Shri R. Sundar Rao and Another Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the revisionist/applicant Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Ms. Vinita Devi ... for the respondents With CPAN/25/2023 R. Sundar Rao Vs.
Ashish John Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Ms. Vinita Devi ... for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent October 31, 2025 [SR] Item Nos. 14&15 Re : CAN/1/2023 (Condonation of delay) CAN/1/2023 is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review application seeking condonation of a period of 228 days. Having considered the submissions and the reasons assigned in paragraphs No. 3, 4 and 7 of this application, we are of the view that, the Director of Social Welfare, Andaman and Nicobar Administration has satisfied this Court by showing sufficient cause as to why the review application could not be filed within time.
It appears that proceedings were pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court from the order which is sought to be reviewed before us.
This Bench can take up the matter as both the learned Judges who had passed the original order, have since retired. Accordingly, delay is condoned and the review application is registered.
CAN/1/2023 is disposed of accordingly Re : CAN/2/2023 (Stay) CAN/2/2023 is an application for stay of operation of the order passed by the erstwhile coordinate Bench dated November 25, 2022 in WP.CT/21/2022. As we propose to take up the review application, we dispose of the stay application without any order.
CAN/2/2023 is disposed of.
Re : RVW/2/2023 Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate presses the review application, seeking review of the direction of the erstwhile Coordinate Bench, to restore the writ petitioner/ R. Sundar Rao as a contractual worker in the post of Welfare Officer (Handicapped). He submits that such direction does not call for review, inasmuch as, the said post is deemed to have been abolished as per a policy of the government. The Administration has already asked for revival of the post, indicating that in order to implement the schemes relating to employment of physically handicapped persons, the post could not be abolished. Mr. Kumar submits that the observation of the Division Bench that there was nothing on records to show that the post had been actually abolished had created a difficult situation for the Administration. The post was deemed to have been abolished as per the policy, as there was no regular appointment to the same for more than two years. Continuation
of Mr. Rao as a contractual staff in the post of Welfare Officer (Handicapped), will create difficulty as the post is no longer in existence and is yet to be revived. However, it is specifically submitted that Mr. Rao will continue to discharge his functions on contractual basis, in any other post designated for physically disabled person and he shall not be disturbed until the post of Welfare Officer (Handicapped) is revived and a selection process is initiated for filling up the said post on a permanent basis. Mr. Binnu Kumar submits that the petitioner has been placed in another position, contrary to the direction of the Division Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench was of the specific view that the post of the Welfare Officer (Handicapped) had not been abolished by any notification. Thus, the authority should not find it difficult to continue Mr. Rao in the post of Welfare Officer (Handicapped). He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, by which the Special Leave Petition from the decision of this Court had been dismissed.
The issue before us is whether Mr. Rao should be allowed to continue as directed by the earlier Bench or should we modify the decision in review, upon considering the predicament of the Administration.
The policy of the government was that, any post which was not filled up for two years should be deemed to be abolished. However, the Administration, in all fairness, asked for the revival of the post indicating the necessity for the same.
It is also true that the post was being manned by Mr. Rao on contractual basis. This shows that the Administration was in necessity of a Welfare Officer in the handicapped category which had not been filled in for more than two years by a
permanent incumbent. The issue of revival is pending. Admittedly, the erstwhile Bench did not consider the policy with regard to deemed abolition of posts. Such policy decision could not be ignored. The same was not discussed in the earlier order.
Under such circumstances, we do not think that any injustice will be caused, if we clarify and review the order of the erstwhile Coordinate Bench to the extent that Mr. Rao shall be continued as a contractual worker as per the order of the Coordinate Bench in the post in which he has since been accommodated, but the nomenclature or designation of Welfare Officer (Handicapped) shall not be attached to the post in which he is not working.
Mr. Rao, shall continue to discharge his duties till the post of the Welfare Officer (Handicapped) is not only revived, but filled up by a regular recruitment process on a permanent basis. Until then, Mr. Rao will not be disturbed and he will be paid the remuneration attached to the post of Welfare Officer (Handicapped) even if the said post does not exist in pen and paper in the department (deemed to be abolished). It is made clear that Mr. Rao's continuation in the contractual service will be counted from the date when he was initially engaged on contractual basis. This order will not create any right of permanent appointment.
The review application and the contempt application stand disposed of.
This order shall not be construed as any observation either on the revival of the post or on permanent filling up of the post, if revived.
Parties to act in terms of the server copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Hon'ble Court. ( Shampa Sarkar, J. ) ( Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J. )