IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SUGATO MAJUMDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI WP.CT/17/2026 SHRI RAHUL DEO MAURYA AND OTHERS … PETITIONERS VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS For the petitioners : Mr. Arul Prasanth For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on : July 01, 2026 Judgment delivered on : July 08, 2026 SUGATO MAJUMDAR, J. 1. The instant writ application is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 17th February, 2026 passed in Contempt Petition No.199 of 2024 in O.A.No.1181/2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Calcutta Bench at Port Blair. 2. The petitioners filed O.A.No.347/2024 under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The plea taken by the writ petitioners in 2 the said O.A.No.347/2024 was that they were initially appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) under the respondent no.5, being the Director, Directorate of Rural Development, in the year 2002 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 in Zilla Parishad on temporary basis without service confirmation since the date of joining. 3. One Smt T. Leena, who was similarly appointed and situated approached the Central Administrative Tribunal earlier wherein the Tribunal passed an order dated 08.09.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider her case. Various other directions were also given. Subsequent orders were passed by this Court and the said T. Leena had been granted First and Second MACP in terms of Order No.1488 dated 22.08.2023. 4. The present petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A.No.347/2024 praying for an order directing the respondent no.5 to extend all the benefits as given to Smt T.Leena, in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court. 5. The said O.A.No.347/2024 was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in terms of the Order dated 08.08.2024 giving direction that since the applicants of the said O.A and T. Leena are similarly situated, the applicants are entitled to get the same benefits, if otherwise found fit, in terms of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal as well as the High Court at Calcutta; further direction was given to the 3 respondents to take appropriate steps to confirm the service of the present writ petitioners from the date they would be entitled in terms of their appointment letter and grant consequential benefits within the period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 6. Subsequently, the contempt petition being No.CP/199/2024 was filed in connection with OA No.347/2024 before the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging non-compliance of the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in O.A.No.347/2024. 7. In terms of the order dated 17.02.2024, the contempt petition was disposed of observing that the grievance of the applicant had already been redressed as the applicant being Rahul Deo Murya, the present writ petitioner no.1 had already been granted admissible benefits. 8. The instant writ petition has been filed against that order alleging that the Administration has not complied with the said order dated 08.08.2024 and has misled the Tribunal to come to a wrong conclusion that the grievance has already been redressed. 9. Referring to para 10 of the writ petition, Mr. Arul Prasanth, submitted that all the service benefits admissible, in terms of the order dated 08.08.2024 has not been given to the present writ petitioners. 10. It is in pleading (paragraph 11) that the writ petitioner no.3 has not been given job confirmation, 1st and 2nd MACP, GPF, OPS order as well as 4 GPF Form. Similarly MACP arrears payment has also not been made to the other writ petitioners except petitioner no.4. It was submitted that the Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion because of misdirection and misplaced information furnished by the Administration. Accordingly, he sought for necessary directions for his clients. 11. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Central Administrative Tribunal, while passing the Order dated 08.08.2024, allowing the benefits extended to Smt T.Leena to the present writ petitioners, made a rider that those benefits would be payable if the petitioners are otherwise found fit. This clause is of paramount importance because the benefits are to be extended subject to the condition that they are fit for that. 12. Mr. Kumar invited attention to the fact that initiation of disciplinary proceedings has been recommended against the writ petitioner no.3. He had been asked to show cause. In view of this, vigilance clearance certificate could not be made in respect of the writ petitioner no.3 for which benefits could not be extended to him. 13. Mr. Prasanth complained that issuance of vigilance clearance certificate is pending for long. Administration sitting tight to extend the benefits to the writ petitioner no.3 on the pretext of contemplation of disciplinary proceeding. 14. We have considered the rival submissions. 5 15. The Tribunal, in terms of the order dated 08.08.2024 directed extension of benefits allowed earlier to Smt. T. Leena, to the writ petitioner subject to the condition that the writ petitioners are found fit. In other words, eligibility criteria were not disturbed or interfered with by the Tribunal. Subject to entitlement and applicable condition, benefits should be extended to writ petitioners. 16. There is nothing in the orders either passed by the High Court or by the Tribunal to the extent that benefits should be extended jeopardizing any extant rule or regulation. But at the same time, it is also true that there should not be any hibernation or procrastination in extending benefits to the writ petitioners. The confirmation had been pending for long since 2002. Now they got their right enforced in their favour after protracted legal battle. Even then, the Administration is slow to consider their cases. 17. Mr. Prasanth, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, filed supplementary affidavit stating therein, annexing documents, that there is no allegation against the writ petitioner No.3. Merit or veracity of allegations are not subject matter of the present writ petition and this Court cannot go into the merit of the same. 18. Contemplation or initiation or pendency of disciplinary proceeding should not be a ploy to defeat the rights of the writ petitioners. If any disciplinary proceeding is contemplated, decision on initiation shall be taken within 15 days. In case any disciplinary proceeding has been 6 initiated, the same shall be complete within sixty days, in both the cases from the date of receiving of copy of this order. Within 15 days thereafter, consideration of extension of the rest of the benefits to the writ petitioner no.3 shall be finalized. In case there is no disciplinary proceeding contemplated or initiated, vigilance clearance certificate should be issued within 15 days from the date of passing of this order. The final decision on compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 08.08.2024 shall be complete within 15 days for the other writ petitioners, if not done yet. 19. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be however, no order as to costs. 20. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 21. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. ( Sugato Majumdar, J. ) I agree. ( Om Narayan Rai, J. )