Calcutta High Court
WP.CT/73/2019 of UNION OF INDIA & ORS Vs DILIP KR SANFUL on 21 August 2026
rpan/ADSL 01 WPCT 73 of 2019 Union of India & Others – Versus – Sri Dilip Kumar Sanfui Mr. Apurba Ghosh …. for the Petitioners. Mr. Sudipto Panda, Mr. Subrata Ghosh … for the Respondent. The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
21.08.2026 rpan/ADSL 01
WPCT 73 of 2019 Union of India & Others
– Versus – Sri Dilip Kumar Sanfui
Mr. Apurba Ghosh …. for the Petitioners. Mr. Sudipto Panda, Mr. Subrata Ghosh … for the Respondent.
The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India and its functionaries challenging an order dated 2nd April, 2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in the original application (in short, OA), being OA/350/479/2016. By the said order the learned Tribunal set aside the order impugned in the OA and directed that ‘respondents shall reckon his appointment to PA as direct recruitment for granting MACP and revise the MACPs already granted, in accordance with the decisions cited supra and issue appropriate order within 3 months with all consequential financial benefits and arrears’. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appearing for the original applicant/respondent submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.4432 of 2019 [Union of India & Others Vs.
E. Sreeramulu]. By the said order the petitioners herein were directed to extend the benefit of MACP. Such contention of Mr. Panda has not been disputed by Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. However, placing reliance upon a memo dated 11th August, 2026, he submits that steps are being taken by the concerned department for filing a review petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Let such written instruction, as place, be kept on record. Answering our query, Mr. Ghosh submits that no review application has yet been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been finally decided, and as no review petition has yet been filed by the petitioners, we are not inclined to grant Mr. Ghosh’s prayer for adjournment of the matter. In view thereof and as indisputably the issue involved in the present writ petition has already been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the instant writ petition 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 of all requisite formalities.
(Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)