4. WP.CT 207 of 2026 Judgment.odt ORDER SHEET WBCHCA0457952026 Ct. No. 1 SL. No. 04 PG IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WP.CT. 207 of 2026 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2026 1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, 11, GARDEN REACH ROAD KOLKATA-700043 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, KHARAGPUR, PURBA MEDINIPORE, PIN-721301 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, KHARAGPUR PURBA MEDINIPUR-721301. ….Petitioners Versus 1. TARUN KUMAR BALA, SON OF LATE ATUL CHANDRA BALA, WORKING AS ENQUIRY-CUM-RESERVATION SUPERVISOR, SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY, RESIDING AT NEHRU COLONY (1ST FLOOR), P.O.-REGENT PARK, KOLKATA-700040. ….Respondent 1 of 7 4. WP.CT 207 of 2026 Judgment.odt ---- Mr. Moti Sagar Tiwari, Ms. Banani Bhattacharya. ... Advocates for the Petitioners Mr. Sagnik Chatterjee Ms. Ananya Neogi, Ms. Anuska Ghosh……………….. Advocates for the Respondent ---- CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ & OM NARAYAN RAI, J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 ORAL JUDGEMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, CJ) 1. Heard. Delay in filing the Petition is condoned. CAN No. 1 of 2026 stands disposed off. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. 3. The Petitioners before us are the Union of India and the South Eastern Railway. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2026 delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, by which O.A. No. 1079/2016 filed by the Original Applicant-employee, is allowed. The Tribunal concluded that the Applicant’s absence from the date of his termination till his reinstatement, should have been adjusted against all kinds of leave 2 of 7 4. WP.CT 207 of 2026 Judgment.odt due to him as on 14.12.2008. The Tribunal interfered with the order passed by the Employer, declaring the entire period of unemployment of the Applicant from 14.1.2008 to 04.07.2013, as ‘no work-no pay’. The Tribunal passed a consequential order that the Applicant will be entitled for all benefits available to him under para 1343 (FR54) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (IREC). 4. For the purpose of completing our order, we are adverting to a few dates and events, which are relevant for our consideration, here under:- (a) The Applicant-Employee joined as a Commercial Clerk in1984. He was charge-sheeted on 15.05.2007. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted. A preliminary hearing was held. After the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 11.07.2008, a final order was passed on 11.12.2008, imposing punishment of removal from service. (b) The charges said to be proved against the Petitioner, involved misappropriation. (c) On 21.01.2009, the Appellate Authority of the Employer passed an order of reducing the punishment from removal to compulsory retirement with 80% 3 of 7 4. WP.CT 207 of 2026 Judgment.odt pensionary benefits. (d) The Applicant-Employee challenged this order before the Tribunal in O.A. No.301/2010, on 22.02.2010. (e) The Tribunal passed an order on 30.11.2012 and set aside the final order/appellate order of the Employer. (f) The Employer-Railways approached the High Court in W.P.C.T. No.242 of 2013, which was dismissed by the High Court on 26.06.2013. (g) The Applicant-Employee was reinstated in service on 04.07.2013 with a direction that the period of unemployment from 11.12.2008 to 04.07.2013, shall be treated as a period of ‘no work no wages’. 5. The learned advocate for the Indian Railway submits that even the Tribunal has observed in the 3rd paragraph on internal page no.10 of its order, that the entire leave accumulated by the Applicant till the date of removal, should be adjusted against the period when he was out of employment. 6. The Original Applicant-Employee is present in the Court. Since the learned advocate for the Employee desired to take further instructions, we granted a pass over. After the matter was 4 of 7 4. WP.CT 207 of 2026 Judgment.odt called out, learned advocate for the Employee submits, on instructions, that the Employee is agreeable for adjustment of his leave accumulated, against the period of his unemployment and the remainder portion of his period of unemployment may be treated as ‘no work-no wages’, provided continuity in service during this period may be observed by this Court to avoid further confusion. 7. The learned advocate for the Railways submits that the Tribunal itself has suggested what is accepted by the Applicant now and an order may be passed by this Court. 8. In view of the above, we record that the period of unemployment of the Original Applicant from 11.12.2008 shall be treated as on duty period, to the extent it can be adjusted towards this period. The remainder period would be treated as a period for which the Applicant would be deprived of wages on the principle of ‘no work-no wages’. 9. It is made clear that all retirement benefits of the Original Applicant would be calculated from the date of his joining the employer as a Commercial Clerk 16.01.1984 till his superannuation on 31.07.2016. 5 of 7 4. WP.CT 207 of 2026 Judgment.odt 10. There is a controversy as regards alleged payment of Rs.6,48,867/- by the Railways to the Original Applicant and for which, a recovery order was issued on 03.11.2017. The Original Applicant present before this Court, instructs his learned advocate to say that this amount was never paid to him. The Officer of the Indian Railways present in the Court Hall, informs his learned advocate that he has no idea about this. 11. Since we desire that this long litigation between the parties from 2007 onwards, needs to be given a ‘quietus’, we order that if any amount is paid to the Original Applicant, for this period, the same may be adjusted against the retirement benefits. If no amount is paid to the Original Applicant, as is set out in the communication dated 03.11.2017, the said notice would lose its efficacy. In the event, an amount of Rs.6,48,867/- has already been deducted from the retirement benefits of the Original Applicant, the same shall be added up to the monetary calculations and the benefits and the payable amount shall accordingly be paid, within 60 days from today. 12. All arrears of gratuity as well as pensionary benefits, 6 of 7 4. WP.CT 207 of 2026 Judgment.odt shall be calculated by treating continuous service of the Original Applicant from 1984 till his superannuation, if not already paid and the same shall be paid to the Original Applicant within a period of 60 days from today. 13. If there is a delayed payment of gratuity, the statutory interest component @ 10% per annum, from the date the gratuity became payable (effective 01.09.2016) till the amount is actually paid, shall be paid within 60 days from today. 14. This Petition is disposed off in the above terms. 15. Rule is made absolute accordingly. (OM NARAYAN RAI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE) CHIEF JUSTICE 7 of 7