Sujit Roy v. Honourable Calcutta High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/1016/2023 Sujit Roy Vs.

The Honourable Calcutta High Court Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Ms. Anjili Nag ... for the respondents April 12, 2024 [SR] Item No.8 Petitioner assails a letter dated September 13, 2023 issued by the High Court Administration rejecting claim of the petitioner. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Lower Grade Clerk in the establishment of the District & Session Judge, Port Blair on May 19, 1999. He was appointed as a Stenographer (OG) in the establishment of the District & Session Judge, Port Blair on June 02, 2003. Petitioner participated in the selection process for the recruitment to the post of Assistant Court Officer issued by the High Court Administration on April 30, 2003. Petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Assistant Court Officer pursuant to an order dated October 28, 2003 issued by the Registrar, Circuit Bench, Port Blair, on November 25, 2003.

Petitioner obtained voluntary retirement with effect from January 01, 2021.

During the period from November 25, 2003 till his retirement of January 01, 2021, petitioner applied for Modified Assured Career Progression benefits, which were not granted to him. Petitioner submitted an application dated September 08, 2023 with regard

thereto. The Registrar replied by the impugned order dated September 09, 2023 rejecting the claim made by the petitioner. Apparently, past service rendered by the petitioner in the District Judiciary was taken into consideration for the purpose of calculating pensionary benefits receivable by the petitioner. Condonation of qualifying service is in the realm of the Administration.

Petitioner admittedly worked in the High Court for the period from November 25, 2003 till January 01, 2021. For this period, he is entitled to MACP. Nothing in the rules governing MACP nor the pensionary benefits disentitles an employee from receiving MACP once his earlier period of service in the District judiciary is taken into consideration for qualifying service for pensionary benefits. In such circumstances, the decision of the High Court Administration is required to be revisited by the High Court Administration.

Consequently, I request the learned Registrar General to place the application of the petitioner dated September 08, 2023 before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for re-consideration. WPA/1016/2023 is disposed of without any order as to costs. ( Debangsu Basak, J. )