15.07.2026 rpan/24 WPCT 218 of 2025 Union of India & Others – Versus – Sri Asis Biswas & Others Mr. Uday Sankar Bhattacharya, Ms. Banani Bhattacharya …. for the Petitioners. Mr. Bharat Bhusan, Mr. Atindranath Misra, Mr. Tamal Mondal … for the Respondents. The present wit petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 5th February, 2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in Original Application No. 350/01400/2019. The Original Application (in short, OA) was preferred challenging an order dated 14th March, 2019, issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation and inter alia praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to grant 60% arrears accrued by the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (in short, CPC) recommendation. Upon contested hearing, the learned Tribunal observed inter alia that after employing the applicants/respondents herein in the post of Lower Division Clerk (in short, LDC) on substantive basis for more than two decades, the respondents/petitioners herein cannot deny them the pay scale and allowances applicable to the concerned post on the ground that they had not been appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. On the rudiments of such observation, the learned Tribunal directed that the respondents would be entitled to the relief claimed by them in the OA and the OA was finally disposed of. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners argues that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondents were initially recruited on contract basis as LDCs and were regularised by the Industrial Statistics (IS) Wing Kolkata against the vacancies of substantive post of LDCs on various dates between the years 1997 and 2000 without the knowledge of the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MoS&PI). He contends that even after noting the fact that the respondents were illegally appointed without following the prescribed procedure, as would be explicit from the order impugned, the learned Tribunal erred in law in granting the reliefs as prayed for by the respondents. He further argues that the appointment of the respondents ought not to have been construed to be an irregular appointment. Such appointment 2 was made in derogation to the statutory provisions and not following the prescribed procedure and in view thereof, such appointment was illegal. In support of such contention, Mr. Bhattacharya has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the cases of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 and State of Karnataka and Others Vs. M. L. Kesari and Others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247. Drawing our attention to the order impugned before the learned Tribunal, Mr. Bhattacharya argues that it would be explicit therefrom that the issue as regards grant of the consequential benefits was considered and it was found by the competent authority that the concerned respondents were regularised without following the due procedure by CSO (IS Wing) as per Government policies. Mr. Bhusan, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, however, denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bhattacharya and submits that the respondents were substantively appointed to the post of LDCs in a particular scale of pay, as would be explicit from the documents annexed at pages 68 to 79 of the writ petition. Upon grant of such regular appointment the petitioners cannot take a stand that the such appointment of the 3 respondents was illegal, moreso when the names of the respondents were sponsored by the Employment Exchange and they participated in a competitive written examination, as conducted by the authorities and after they emerged to be successful in the same, they were granted appointment. He further argues that the petitioners illegally withheld 60% of arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of the 6th CPC recommendation on a purported plea that the issue is under examination of the authorities. The authorities themselves failed to discharge their statutory obligations and withheld the consequential benefits and such illegality was rightly interfered with by the learned Tribunal and consequential relief, as prayed for, was granted. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order impugned, warranting interference in exercise of the power of judicial review. Mr. Bhusan contends that the learned Tribunal arrived at a categoric finding that the respondents did not secure employment on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation of facts. The petitioners having appointed the respondents substantively in a regular scale, cannot withhold 60% of arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of the 6th CPC even though the selection procedure was relaxed. 4 We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, the respondents were appointed substantively in the post of LDCs in a particular scale of pay. Accepting such substantive appointment, the petitioners themselves disbursed 40% arrears of pay and allowances on the basis of the recommendation of the 6th CPC and in the said conspectus, the petitioners cannot urge that such appointments were not within the knowledge of the Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation (MoS&PI). The respondents were granted appointment in regular posts only after they emerged to be successful in a competitive selection process. It has also not been disputed that the respondents had the eligibility for substantive appointment to the concerned posts. The respondents have worked for more than 10 years in regular posts, they possessed the prescribed qualification and were successful in the written examination and as such the judgments upon which reliance has been placed by the petitioners do not stand in the way towards the claim of the respondents. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and 5 we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Accordingly, the writ petition 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, A.C.J.) 6