10.09.2026 Item No.2 PG/KS Ct. No.1 WP.CT. 185 of 2026 Union of India & Ors. Vs. Boby Modak (Ghosh) & Ors. Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta Mr. Guddu Singh .….For the Petitioners/U.O.I. Mr. M. N. Roy Mr. Subhadeep Chatterjee Mr. Gourab Halder Ms. Arpita Kundu .....For the Respondent ORDER (P.C.) 1. We have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned counsel for the Union of India and the learned counsel representing the Respondents/Workmen. 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench has delivered a judgment on 10.12.2025 in Original Application No.350/1085/2019 with M.A. 350/619/2019, which is sought to be assailed on the ground that the Tribunal has misread the facts of the case. However, on the basis of the record and instructions, the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Union of India submits that Respondent nos.1 was working from 1997 until June, 2025 in the Railway Mail Service. Respondent No.2 was working in the Rest House as an Attendant, since 1997 upto June, 2025 and Respondent No.3 was working from 1997 till May, 2025 in the Railway Mail Service. 3. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that these employees were in employment when they had approached the Tribunal. A payment slip placed on record before the Tribunal, copy of which is also placed before us, carries the booking date 07.07.2025 and the payment is made on 10.07.2025. In short, Employer-Employee relationship is not denied. 4. Since, we are exercising supervisory jurisdiction, merely because a different view is possible, the impugned judgment cannot be branded as being perverse or erroneous, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 and Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6 SCC 675. 5. In the light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the Union of India, on specific instructions, clearly admitting the daily wage services of these three respondents from 1997, we have no hesitation in concluding that the Tribunal has not erred in it’s conclusions. Moreover, the directions issued in paragraph 13 of the judgment are in accordance with law, which read as under:- 2 “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as quoted supra, we are of the opinion that it would be utter travesty of justice if the applicants are not regularized even after working in the department for a considerably long time on need basis. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for regularization in the light of the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shripal and Jaggo (supra) with due consideration of the fact that they performed perennial nature of duty under the respondents for a considerable period and grant them all consequential benefits, if they are found otherwise suitable for regularization as per rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 6. The learned counsel for the Union of India has tried to suggest on instructions that the daily wagers, who are newly being engaged, have to perform multi tasking and they are now identified as ‘Multi Tasking Staff’ (in short, ‘MTS’). We are given to understand that this nomenclature MTS has been introduced recently. We do not find that this recent development could be an impediment in considering the rights of the Original Applicants before the Tribunal, who have been working from 1997. To say the least, these employees, who have been working for almost 30 years, shall be considered on priority by giving them the first preference for regularization with all consequential benefits. 7. Considering the above, this Petition is disposed off. 8. We caution the Petitioners, not to reject the proposals of these three Respondents, who would be 3 considered along with all other similarly situated daily wagers, taking into account their dates of joining, on the basis of their seniority, notwithstanding that some may not have initiated litigation. 9. We further clarify that the timeline granted by the Tribunal shall be sacrosanct, with effect from today. 10. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously upon compliance of all legal formalities. (TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) Chief Justice 4