Union Of India & Others vs Buddhadeb Mukhopadhyay & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 4981 Cal

11.08.2023
 rpan/05


                               WPCT 31 of 2023

                      Union of India & Others
                             - Versus -
                  Buddhadeb Mukhopadhyay & Others


                           Mr. S. N. Dutta,
                           Mr. Rajib Kumar Acharyya,
                           Mr. Saptarshi Chakraborty
                                        ... for the Petitioners.
                           Mr. Ujjal Roy,
                           Mr. Arpa Chakraborty
                                       ... for the Respondents.

The present writ petition has been preferred

challenging an order dated 29th March, 2022 passed in

an original application, being O. A. 350/00055/2017.

By the said order the learned Tribunal, upon

discussing the facts of the case and the judgments

cited by the respective parties, directed the respondent

authorities 'to consider the case of the applicants in the

light of Premachandran (supra) and Devamalya (supra)

and to decide within a period of 16 weeks from the date

of receipt of a copy of this order. Admissible benefits, if

any, are to be disbursed to the applicants concerned

within a further period of 10 weeks thereafter'.

Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioners herein/respondents in the original

application, submits that the learned Tribunal erred in

law in not taking into consideration the fact that the

decision contained in DoPT O.M. dated 14th November,

2014 was a policy decision in which it was clearly

stated that retired officials would have no right for

actual promotion. The petitioners cannot be directed to

act contrary to the same. The directions contained in

the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal are

mutually contradictory and self-defeating and as such

the impugned order is not sustainable in law. In

support of such contention reliance has been placed

upon a judgment delivered in the case of Directorate of

Film Festivals and Others Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and

Others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 737.

Mr. Dutta argues that the learned Tribunal failed

to evaluate the stand taken by the petitioners and

though as per the records the respondents' claim does

not deserve consideration afresh, the petitioners have

been unnecessarily directed to embark upon a fresh

exercise.

According to Mr. Dutta, the learned Tribunal

erred in law in arriving at a finding that the petitioners

have not performed their entrusted duties and had not

demonstrated proactivity. In view of such finding,

nothing is left to be reconsidered by the petitioners.

Per contra, Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing

for the applicants/respondents herein submits that it

is an admitted fact that the Departmental Promotion

Committee (in short, DPC) meetings could not be held

for several years even though vacancies arose during

the years. Due to such laches on the part of the

petitioners, the respondents cannot be made to suffer.

Appreciating such argument, as advanced on behalf of

the respondents and noting the proposition of law, as

laid down in the judgments delivered in the cases of P.

M. Premachandran Vs. State of Kerala and Others,

reported in (2004) 1 SCC 245 and Devamalya Basu & 9

Others Vs. Union of India & Others (O.A. No.116 of

2003), the learned Tribunal directed the petitioners to

consider the case of the respondents. Such direction

neither does prejudice the petitioners in any manner

nor does suffer from any infirmity warranting

interference of this Court. In support of the arguments,

Mr. Roy has dawn our attention to the averments made

by the petitioners in the reply filed before the learned

Tribunal.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties and considered the materials on

record.

In the order impugned the learned Tribunal had

inter alia observed that the petitioners ought to have

been diligent in sending DPC proposal to the Union

Public Service Commission (in short, UPSC) in

resolving the procedural issues such as collection of

APAR/ACRs and to reach finality on the issues well

within time. Appropriate reasons were not disclosed by

the petitioners towards the delay in resolving such

procedural issues and in view thereof, the learned

Tribunal directed the petitioners to consider the

respondents' claim in the light of the proposition of law

laid down in judgments delivered in the cases of P. M.

Premachandran (supra) and Devamalya Basu (supra).

In our opinion, the argument of Mr. Dutta that in view

of the observations made in the impugned order

nothing is left to be reconsidered by the petitioners is

misconceived. The learned Tribunal upon disclosing

the reasons had exercised discretion in favour of the

respondents and directed the petitioners to consider

the case of the respondents. Such directions, in our

opinion, are neither unreasonable nor impulsive. The

order impugned does not suffer from any patent error

or any manifest injustice warranting interference of

this Court.

In view thereof, the writ petition, being WPCT 31

of 2023 is dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon

compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)