WP.CT/190/2026 of UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs Satyajit Singh on 24 August 2026

August 24, 2026 Sl. No.2 Court No.1 s.biswas

WPCT 190 of 2026

Union of India and others vs. Shri Satyajit Singh

Mr. Shib Shankar Banerjee Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree ... the petitioners Mr. Arnab Chakraborty Mr. Aniket Chudhary ... for the respondent

The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 27th February, 2026 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA) being OA 292 of 2026. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that on one hand the learned Tribunal, by the impugned order, had specifically directed that no person junior to the original applicant/respondent herein shall be promoted and on the other hand directed the petitioners to keep one post vacant which would abide by the result of the OA. Such contradictory directions would stall the entire promotional process inasmuch as there are juniors to the respondent in service, who are going to retire at a date earlier to the respondent. Mr. Banerjee apprises this Court that during the pendency of the OA, a memo dated 20th August, 2026

has already been issued by the competent authority which would reveal that the respondent had been placed above his juniors in the panel and that as such his promotion stands confirmed. In view thereof, the direction to keep one post vacant is not sustainable. Let a copy of the memo dated 20th August, 2026, as placed, be kept on record. A copy of the same has been handed over to Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondent, in Court today. Mr. Chakraborty, however, denies the contention of Mr. Banerjee and submits that in the event the order passed by the learned Tribunal is interfered with, the petitioners would promote persons junior to the respondent. He contends that the order impugned was passed on 27th February, 2026 and subsequently when the matter again appeared before the learned Tribunal on 8th June, 2026, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, upon instruction, submitted that one post of Chief Commissioner has been kept vacant for promotion of the respondent. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. From the memo dated 20th August, 2026, it appears that the respondent herein has been placed at Sl.No.11- A, below one Mr. Gudavalli Sreenivasa Rao and above

Mr. Ved Prakash Shukla, for promotion to the grade of Chief Commissioner of Customs and Indirect Taxes in the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Indirect Taxes). The order dated 27th February, 2026 has been challenged by affirming the present writ petition on 18th August, 2026 after the respondents submitted before the learned Tribunal on 8th June, 2026 that one post of Chief Commissioner has been kept vacant for promotion of the respondent. In view thereof, the direction as sought for by Mr. Banerjee at this stage to grant promotion to the juniors to the respondent, as they are going to retire earlier than the respondent, is not acceptable to this Court. For the reasons discussed above, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly, 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.)