1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/475/2026 Sudhamoy Mondal Vs. The Lieutenant Governor and Others Ms. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. K. Bawali … for the petitioner Mr. Rakesh Kumar … for the respondents September 25, 2026 [SR] Item No.2 1. The essential facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was a Daily Rated Mazdoor (DRM) since 2014 under different department. Initially he was under the APWD, thereafter since 10.12.2021 working as DRM in the Electricity Department. Upon his implication in a criminal case, he was arrested on 16.10.2024, whereby he was prevented from discharging duties thereafter. After he was granted bail, he pursued the authorities to allow him to resume his duties. He has since then been pursuing his resumption of duties. 2. This Court is informed that ultimately he was acquitted in the criminal case on 25.11.2025. Upon his acquittal, he has approached the authority for allowing him to resume his duties. A conciliation proceeding in this regard is also pending before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (ALC), Office of the Labour Commissioner & DET, Sri Vijaya Puram. In the meantime, when the petitioner requested to be allowed to resume his duties, he was served with show cause as to why his request for re-engagement as a DRM should not be rejected. The same led to issuance of a speaking order dated 09.09.2026. The order 2 rejected the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement by holding that there was no provision for a re-engagement of DRM. 3. The writ petition has been filed aggrieved by such rejection of the petitioner’s claim. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior advocate for the writ petitioner that on account of a false implication in a criminal case, the petitioner was prevented from continuing with his duty as DRM since 16.10.2024, till the date of bail being granted to him on 31.01.2025. Since then, petitioner has been approaching the authorities with request to allow him to resume duties but his resumption of duties or rejoining is being resisted by the authority. It is under such circumstances, that conciliation proceedings were initiated before the Assistant Labour Commissioner. 5. In view of the speaking order dated 09.09.2026, the petitioner is likely to suffer grave prejudice in the conciliation proceedings also. 6. Learned advocate for the respondent authority does not deny the pendency of the conciliation proceeding. However, he submits that in view of an order No. 2276 dated 10.08.2023 issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration, the petitioner cannot be allowed to join. Clause ‘d’ of the order dated 10.08.2023, contains a bar to appointment of fresh DRMs, working under the Administration. 7. This Court has considered the submission of the parties. The clause ‘d’ of the Order No. 2276 dated 10.08.2023 relied by the writ petitioner reads: “d. In order to rationalize the workforce and to curtail unnecessary financial burden on the Government, henceforth, fresh DRM even against the existing slots of DRMs who have since left shall not be engaged by any 3 Department on its own level, in compliance with the directions of Hon’ble Lt.Governor, A & N Islands vide Note No.SLG/PS/2019/757 dated 09.12.2019.” 8. Plain reading of the provision reveals that the object of the provision is to nationalize the workforce, and to curtail unnecessary financial burden on the government. Hence, the provision imposes engagement of “fresh DRM”. The petitioner however was already working as DRM, since long, prior to issuance of the Order No.2276 dated 10.08.2023; and his discontinuation thereafter is due to circumstances beyond his control. His assertion that he was prevented from continuing his duty on account of a false implication in a criminal case stands vindicated by the order of acquittal dated 21.12.2025. 9. Under the circumstances, this Court finds no substance in the speaking order dated 09.09.2026. 10. However, an issue arose that the conciliation proceeding is pending. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is yet to be considered by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in the conciliation proceeding. 11. In view of the pendency of the conciliation proceeding, this Court disposes of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the conciliation proceeding. 12. This Court, however, makes it clear that in view of consideration above, the speaking order dated 09.09.2026 is unsustainable, and shall have no persuasive value; and shall not stand in the way of consideration by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, in the conciliation proceeding, in accordance with law. 13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 4 14. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. ( Madhuresh Prasad, J. )