Shri Banshidhar Mohapatra vs Union Of India And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8579 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Shri Banshidhar Mohapatra vs Union Of India And 3 Ors on 17 November, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010097882025




                                                                 undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Review.Pet./83/2025

            SHRI BANSHIDHAR MOHAPATRA
            S/O LATE TRILOCHAN MOHAPATRA, R/O HOUSE NO 42, SOUTH SARANIA,
            HEMGIRI HILLS, GUWAHATI 781007, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
            REPRESENTED BY SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
            FINANCE, DEPTT. OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (BANKING DIVISION) JIVAN
            DEEP BUILDING, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI 110001

            2:THE CHAIRPERSON
             DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DRTA) 9 OLD POST STREET
             KOLKATA GPO
             7TH FLOOR
             KOLKATA

            3:THE REGISTRAR

             DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DRTA) 9 OLD POST STREET
             KOLKATA GPO
             7TH FLOOR
             KOLKATA

            4:THE PRESIDING OFFICER

             DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI
             SUWARANA BHAWAN HOUSE NO 12
             NEW TOWN PATH ULUBARI
             GUWAHATI 78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S C KEYAL, KAUSHIK JAIN
                                                                   Page No.# 2/6


Advocate for the Respondent : ,




             Linked Case : WP(C)/3589/2023

            UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
            MINISTRY OF FINANCE
            DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (BANKING DIVISION)
            JIVAN DEEP BUILDING
            PARLIAMENT STREET

            NEW DELHI-110001.

            2: THE CHAIRPERSON

            DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DRAT)
            9
            OLD POST STREET
            KOLKATA GPO
            7TH FLOOR
            KOLKATA-700001.

             3: THE REGISTRAR

            DEBTS RECOVERY APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DRAT)
            9
            OLD POST OFFICE STREET
            KOLKOTA GPO
            7TH FLOOR
            KOLKATA-700001.

             4: THE PRESIDING OFFICER

            DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
            GUWAHATI
            SUWARNA BHAVAN
            H/NO. 12
            NEW TOWN
            PATH
            ULUBARI
            GUWAHATI-781007.
            VERSUS
                                                                   Page No.# 3/6

            BANSHIDHAR MOHAPATRA
            S/O LATE TRILOCHAN MOHAPATRA

            SECTION OFFICER ON DEPUTATION
            DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL
            GUWAHATI
            SUWARNA BHAVAN
            H/NO. 12
            NEW TOWN PATH
            ULUBARI
            GUWAHATI-781007


            ------------

For the Petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. AG, assam For the Respondent(s) :

-B E F O R E -

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

17.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

We have heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Advocate for the review petitioner.

This review petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 01.04.2025, passed by a coordinate Bench in WP(C) No. 3589/2023.

The petitioner had applied for being appointed as a Section Officer, on deputation, in the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati Bench, under the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati, Group 'A' and 'B' (Gazetted) and Group 'B' (Non-Gazetted) Posts Recruitment Rules, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as "Rules of 2001").

The Rules of 2001 specifies that if any candidate selected is a Page No.# 4/6

departmental candidate, his appointment shall be deemed to be promotion. The eligibility for such appointment is 8 years working experience as an Assistant.

The petitioner returned successful and was appointed on the post of Section Officer in the DRT, Guwahati. He, on being asked, desired to have his appointment treated as on deputation and also claimed deputation charges as part of his salary.

Later, the Rules of 2001 underwent a change and a common Rule was framed in the year 2018, amalgamating all DRT institutions, including the DRAT, Kolkata, and a common seniority list of Assistants was published, wherein the petitioner was shown as an Assistant at a particular serial number.

The petitioner submitted a representation before the Presiding Officer, DRT, Guwahati to treat his appointment as promotion and not deputation.

The Presiding Officer, DRT, Guwahati, forwarded the said representation to the DRAT, Kolkata for consideration. The DRAT, Kolkata, rejected the prayer of the petitioner vide order dated 15.01.2020.

However, before the aforesaid rejection of the petitioner's application, the petitioner had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati, vide O.A. No. 040/375/2019 seeking a direction to treat his appointment as promotion and not deputation. He was strengthened to file such an application on the basis of a favourable report given by the Presiding Officer of the DRT, Guwahati.

The Tribunal, considering the recommendation of the Presiding Officer, DRT, Guwahati, allowed the Original Application filed by the Page No.# 5/6

petitioner and directed that the petitioner's appointment be treated as promotion and not deputation.

This view of the Tribnunal was however upturned by a Division Bench of this Court on the reasoning that the petitioner's very appointment as Section Officer under the Rules of 2001 was on the basis of the petitioner having applied for appointment on deputation. The later developments and the option exercised by the petitioner also confirmed the same. It was only much later that the Rules underwent change in 2018 with all entities having been amalgamated into one unit governed by a common Rule.

The High Court found that when the petitioner was appointed, the DRTs at different places were distinct entities and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been treated as a departmental candidate. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner by the DRAT, Kolkata, for his appointment to be treated as promotion was, thus, sustained. The petitioner unfortunately had to go back to his substantive cadre of Assistants and post the judgment of the High Court, he was transferred as an Assistant in DRT, Hyderabad.

Mr. Keyal submits that under the new Rules, there is a provision for promotion under the Next Below Rule (NBR) and many juniors to the petitioner have been promoted to the post of Section Officer and therefore he also deserves to be given such benefit of promotion to the post of Section Officer as he has worked in that capacity for several years.

We are of the view that this could be a separate cause of action, which cannot be agitated in the review jurisdiction.

Page No.# 6/6

Not having found any error apparent on the face of the record/judgment sought to be reviewed, we accede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw this review petition, giving liberty to him to agitate his claim before an appropriate forum.

We order accordingly.

The review petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.

                           JUDGE               CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant