02.09.2026 Item No.05 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra WP.CT 165 of 2026 Union of India & ors. - Versus - Chandra Nath Das Ms. Anindita Maity, Mr. Sukanta Ghosh, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree ...for the petitioners Affidavit-of-service, as filed, be kept on record. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 17th March, 2026 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA) being OA 00350/1461/2022 preferred by the original applicant/respondent herein, namely, Chandra Nath Das (in short, Chandra). Records reveal that Chandra was initially engaged as substitute Bungalow Khalasi-cum-Messenger with effect from 20th December, 2005. He was, however, absent from his duties during the period from 12th June, 2006 to 4th February, 2008 and, accordingly, he was removed from service vide order dated 5th February, 2008. Subsequent thereto, the order of removal was set aside and Chandra was reinstated with effect from 21st October, 2008. The period of absence from duty from 12th June, 2006 to 4th February, 2008 was regularised by granting him extraordinary leave (in short, EoL) and the period from 05th February, 2008 to 20th October, 2008 was treated as on duty. However, though Chandra was granted temporary status, he was finally regularised as Group- D/Helper with effect from 04th June, 2014 after he emerged to be successful in the screening test. He was thereafter assigned seniority from the date of such regularisation i.e., 04th June, 2014. Aggrieved thereby, he submitted an appeal for treating his seniority from the date of grant of temporary status. As the same was not considered, he was constrained to prefer an OA, which was disposed of by an order dated 29th March, 2012 directing the concerned respondents to consider Chandra’s appeal/representation. Pursuant to such order, the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Sealdah passed an order on 17th June, 2022 rejecting Chandra’s claim. Aggrieved thereby, Chandra preferred the OA, which was disposed of in the present writ petition. In the said order, the learned Tribunal set aside the order passed by the petitioner no.4 herein on 17th June, 2022 and directed the petitioner no.4 to issue appropriate order. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to the earlier direction of the learned Tribunal, Chandra’s claim was rejected by a reasoned order and Chandra could not 2 have claimed seniority with effect from 18th April, 2006 having suffered an order of removal for unauthorised absence as the period of such absence ought to have been treated as break in service. He argues that the date on which the respondent was regularised ought to have been treated as the date of appointment in a permanent post. In view thereof, Chandra could not have claimed seniority with effect from the date on which he was granted temporary status. Such argument, as advanced, was not glossed over by the learned single Judge. In spite of service, no one appears today on behalf of Chandra being the respondent herein. We have heard Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and considered the materials on record. Paragraph 6 of RBE/137/2010 specifically provides that ‘The date of appointment of a substitute to be recorded in the service book against the column “Date of Appointment” should be the date on which he/she has attains temporary status after a continuous service of four months, if the same is followed by his/her regular absorption. Otherwise, it should be the date on which he/she is regularly appointed/absorbed’. Chandra’s period of alleged unauthorised absence was regularised by the petitioners. In view thereof, such period of absence could not have been construed 3 to be a break in service and in view of such regularisation, the learned Tribunal rightly opined that the date of appointment of Chandra should be the date on which he attained temporary status in terms of RBE/137/2010. On the rudiments of such findings, the learned Tribunal rightly set aside and quashed the order dated 17th June, 2022 passed by the petitioner no.4 and observed that the date of appointment ought to be recorded the date on which he attained a temporary status i.e., 18th April, 2006 and that his seniority as Group-D staff ought to be determined from the said date. The learned Tribunal also directed the petitioners to issue appropriate order in that regard. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being WP.CT 165 of 2026 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. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 4 5