IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR GUPTA WPCT/8/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … PETITIONERS VS. SHRI A. SELVARAJ AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS For the petitioners : Mr. Rakesh Kumar For the respondents : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar Heard on : February 17, 2026 Delivered on : February 17, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. The writ petition is at the behest of the administration and directed against order dated August 08, 2025 passed in OA 351/00217/2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, Circuit sitting at Port Blair. 2. By the impugned order, learned Tribunal quashed the order dated September 01, 2017 of the writ petitioners negating 2 claim of the private respondents as to their entitlement in terms of office memorandum dated June 07, 1988. 3. Learned Tribunal by the impugned order directed the petitioners to pay the arrears to the private respondents from the date of their initial engagement as Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM) as per records by following the office memorandum dated June 07, 1988 and July 31, 2015. Since, the private respondents acquired their rights before the circular dated September 01, 2017, learned Tribunal fixed a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the impugned order for compliance. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner submits that, the private respondents are governed by clause (c) of the office memorandum no. 289 dated September 22, 2017. The private respondents are entitled to enhanced wages if they were working against an existing vacancy of a duly sanctioned post as on September 01, 2017. According to him, none of the private respondents were working against any existing vacancy of a duly sanctioned post, as on September 01, 2017 and therefore, none of the private respondents were entitled to the benefits under the office memorandum of 1988 or 2015 as directed by the impugned order. 3 5. Learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that, the issue as to the entitlement of Daily Rated Mazdoors to the benefits of 1988 circular, received consideration by the High Court. He refers to the judgment and order dated December 13, 2019 passed in WP 268 2019 which was upheld by the Division Bench in MA 9 of 2020. He submits that, the Division Bench in MA 9 of 2020 merely clarified that, the 2017 circular was a onetime measure. The Division Bench however, protected the rights of the private respondents who are entitled to the benefits under the 1988 Circular. He points out that, being aggrieved by an order passed in contempt, the authorities filed a Special Leave Petition which was disposed of by an order dated August 14, 2023. 6. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that, clause (c) of the office memorandum dated September 22, 2017 was subsequently modified on August 10, 2023. Therefore, the clause (c) of the office order dated September 22, 2017 is no longer in existence. 7. Learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents, refers to and relies upon various judgments and orders passed by the High Court from time to time namely, the order dated March 08, 2019 passed in WP No. 185 of 2018 with WP No. 219 4 of 2018, the order dated July 17, 2019 passed in MA 22 of 2019 and MA No. 23 of 2019, order of rejection of the Special Leave Petition passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on June 02, 2020 and March 02, 2021, amongst others. 8. The private respondents were working as Heavy Vehicle Drivers (Bus Drivers) and Bus Conductors under the Administration. They were appointed between the period from 2006 to 2013 on daily wage basis and on the basis of a selection process conducted by the Administration. Their term of engagement was extended from time to time. 9. Claiming that the nature of duties and responsibilities discharged by the private respondents at par with the regular employees and are perennial in nature under a permanent establishment. The private respondents claimed several benefits. In support of their claims private respondents relied upon AIR 1986 SC 584 (Surinder Singh – versus – Chief Engineer, CPWD). 10. Administration issued office memorandum dated June 07, 1988 in terms of the ratio of AIR 1986 SC 584 (Surinder Singh – versus – Chief Engineer, CPWD). By such office memorandum, pay at the rate of 1/30th of pay plus dearness allowance was granted to the daily rated employees at the 5 minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for discharging the duties and responsibilities of regular employees. 11. Pursuant to such office memorandum, Administration commenced disbursing benefits of 1/30th of pay plus dearness allowance the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance to casual workers who were discharging duties and responsibilities at par with regular employees for work of eight hours a day. 12. Subsequently, Administration issued office order bearing No. 3745 dated December 9, 2014 after taking into consideration award dated April 29, 2013 passed in ID Case No. 31/2003. Administration issued another office order bearing No. 2400 dated July 31, 2015 by which, it extended the benefits of the award in such ID Case No. 31 of 2003 to all other Daily Rated Employees, who performed regular nature of duties in the Directorate of Transport. This proposal was concurred to by the Department of Law, Personnel and Finance of the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. 13. In terms of such Office Memorandum, benefits were granted to the private respondent from August, 2015. However, there were not given such benefits from their initial date of engagement. 6 14. The private respondents thereafter filed several representations between the period April 2024 and May 2024 which were not considered. The private respondents filed OA No. 965 of 2014 which was disposed of by an order dated July 12, 2024 requiring the authorities to consider the representation in light of the order dated July 31, 2015 and various other judicial pronouncements. Pursuant to such order, the office order dated October 11, 2024 was passed negating the claim of private respondents. 15. Being aggrieved by the order dated October 11, 2024 of the private respondents approached the Tribunal in which the impugned order dated August 8, 2025 was passed. 16. The issue of entitlements of the DRMs to receive benefits under the 1988 office memorandum fell for consideration before the High Court in WP/268/2018 which was disposed of on December 13, 2019. The Single Judge of the High Court, directed that, a Daily Rated Casual worker engaged by the Administration in the department will be entitled to 1/30th of the pay at the minimum relevant pay scale plus dearness allowance for work of eight hours a day on everyday of their engagement on and from June 7, 1988. Appeal carried against such judgment and order dated December 13, 2019 being 7 MA/9/2020 was disposed of by an order dated December 19, 2022 by which, the Division Bench, recorded that, the Office Memorandum bearing No. 289 dated September 22, 2017 was a onetime measure. The Division Bench clarified that, all other benefits of Daily Rated Mazdoors and other persons arising out of the circular dated June 7, 1988 remained preserved and undisturbed to be agitated in the event such persons are aggrieved by any scheme proposed by the Administration and directed to be framed. The order dated December 19, 2022 directed framing of a scheme. 17. No steps being taken in terms of the order dated December 19, 2022 of the Division Bench, a contempt petition was filed. In such contempt petition several orders were passed. Being aggrieved by one of such orders, the Administration preferred a Special Leave Petition which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 5014 of 2023. Such Civil Appeal was disposed of by a judgment and order dated August 14, 2023 without the direction for framing of a scheme and the clarification that the 2017 Circular did not affect rights accrued under the 1988 Circular, being altered. 18. We find from the record that, private respondents were engaged between from 2006 to 2013. At that material point of 8 time, the circular of 2017 was not in operation. It is nobody’s case that the circular of 2017 is with retrospective effect. 19. Judicial pronouncement which governs the field with regard to 1988 and 2017 circulars binds all the parties before us. The judicial pronouncement are dated December 13, 2019 of the learned Single Judge, December 19, 2022 of the Division Bench as also the judgment and order dated August 14, 2023 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. Benefits accruing to the private respondents under the 1988 circular recognized by the judicial pronouncement dated December 13, 2019 remain unaltered till date despite the appeal carried therefrom. In fact, the Appeal Court clarified that the persons entitled to the benefits under the 1988 circular, will be entitled thereto. Such decisions are binding on the authorities. 21. The contention of the writ petitioner is that, there was a circular of 2017, which governs the field. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the private respondents, such circular was negated subsequently by the Office Memorandum dated August 10, 2023. 22. In any event, the 2017 circular, takes care of appointment subsequent to the 2017. Private respondents herein are appointees from 2006 to 2013. They are obviously governed by 9 the 1988 circular. Benefits accruing under the 1988 circular stood preserved as noted by the Division Bench in MA/9/2020. 23. That being the position in law and in fact, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal. 24. Since, the learned Tribunal granted four weeks time to comply with the order, we extend the period for compliance, for a period of four weeks from date. 25. WP.CT/8/2026 is disposed of without any order as to costs. (Debangsu Basak, J.) 26. I agree. (Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.)