WP.CT/57/2025 of SUBHAS CHOWDHURY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. on 8 September 2026

08.09.2026 Item No.23 Court No.11 KCP WPCT 57 of 2025

Subhas Chowdhury

- Versus - Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Bharat Bhushan Mr. Atindranath Misra Mr. Tamal Mondal …. For the petitioner

Mr. Pramod Kumar Drolia Mr. S. K. Pandey …. For the respondent nos.1 & 2

The present writ petition has been preferred by the original applicant/petitioner herein, namely, Subhas Chowdhury (in short, Subhas) challenging an order dated 20th May, 2024 passed by the learned Tribunal in an original application (in short, OA) being OA 350/00740/2020. Mr. Bhushan, learned advocate appearing for Subhas submits that the petitioner has been made to suffer for the delay attributable to the respondents. Subhas while working under the Eastern Railway participated in a selection process for the post of Motor Man in Metro Railway. Having emerged to be successful, he was directed to join on 17th January, 1997. However, release order was not issued by Eastern Railway contemporaneously and Subhas could join Metro Railway only about seven months thereafter on 11th August, 1997 and as a consequence thereof, he had been illegally denied due seniority and incremental benefits. Drawing our attention to an office order no.66 of 1998, Mr. Bhushan strenuously argues that as Subhas was not released to join Metro Railway in time due to administrative interest, he was superseded by his juniors in the seniority list. Mr. Bhushan argues that had his appointment on absorption been treated on and from 17th January, 1997 then he would have been entitled to the incremental benefits earned by his juniors. Such argument, as advanced, was glossed over by the learned Single Judge and no finding was returned on the same. Mr. Drolia, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.1 and 2 denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Bhushan and submits that Subhas himself requested for postponement of his release from Easter Railway to take up the new assignment in Metro Railway. In view thereof, it cannot be urged that such delay was due to administrative reason. It is not a case that Subhas had been made to suffer due to the laches on the part of the respondents. Elaborating such argument, Mr. Drolia submits that it would be explicit from the records that Subhas was invited to join the post way back on 17th January, 1997. At that juncture, he was in possession of the railway quarter at Sealdah Division. Subhas himself refused to surrender possession of the quarter. In fact, Subhas applied for retention of such quarter. In view thereof, the Eastern Railway could issue the release order in favour of Subhas only on 11th August, 1997. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, though Subhas was directed to join Metro Railway on 17th January, 1997, he joined on 11th August, 1997. He was not issued release order as he was retaining the railway quarter. In fact, Subhas himself represented before the authorities for extension of time to join his new assignment on the ground of health issues. However, Subhas accepted such belated release without challenging such action on the part of the respondents contemporaneously before the appropriate forum. In view thereof, Subhas cannot turn back and subsequently claim for a direction upon the respondents to treat his appointment in Metro Railway on and from 17th January, 1997. The delay that had occurred towards joining was not on any administrative ground. In the said conspectus, the learned Tribunal refused to exercise discretion in favour of Subhas.

The issue as regards grant of incremental benefits and pay at par with his juniors was also not appropriately pleaded in the OA. The act of the authorities, in our opinion, does not appear to be arbitrary or mala fide. The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the factual issues arrived at specific finding and we do not find any infirmity in the said order warranting interference in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition being WPCT 57 of 2025 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 with all requisite formalities.

(Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)