WP.CT/74/2020 of Union of India Vs SANDIP MAITY @ MAITI on 23 July 2026

23.07.2026 Item No.01 Court No.01 KCP WPCT 74 of 2020

Union of India

- Versus - Sri Sandip Maity @ Maiti

Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty Ms. Sarda Sha

…. For the petitioner

Mr. Uday Narayan Betal Mr. Barun Chatterjee Mr. Mriganka Patra

…. For the respondent

The present writ petition has been preferred by the Union of India represented through the General Manager, Eastern Railway challenging an order dated 19th September, 2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in the Original Application being OA/350/1624/2014. The said Original Application (in short, OA) was preferred by the original applicant/respondent herein, namely, Sandip Maity (in short, Sandip) praying for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondent in the OA being the petitioner herein to approve the services of the Sandip in the vacant Group-‘D’ post under the Eastern Railway in the light of the judgment/order passed in OA 671 of 2013 dated 14th November, 2014. The said OA was preferred by one Joyhind Prasad and others, who are similarly situated with Sandip. The issue involved in the same was, as to whether, persons who have been found unfit in C-I category and were not absorbed as Parcel Porters can be considered against alternative posts and adjusted against other avenues as similarly circumstanced Parcel Porters have been adjusted as Bedding Porters etc. In course of hearing of the said OA, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the applicants therein who have been found unfit in C-I category and have not been absorbed as Parcel Porters can be considered against alternative posts and can be adjusted against other avenues. Recording such concession, the OA was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the applicants therein against available vacancies of Porters in other categories commensurate with their medical fitness or less than C-I category. The said order was challenged by the petitioner herein and others by preferring a writ petition being WPCT 80 of 2019 before this Court. The said writ petition, upon contested hearing, was disposed of by an order dated 21st August, 2024 directing the Railway authorities to grant appointment to the respondent nos.5 and 8 therein, who did not attain the age of superannuation. Challenging the said order dated 21st August, 2024, the petitioner and others preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP No.29381/2024 which was also dismissed by an order dated 16th December, 2024. Subsequent thereto, the order of the learned Tribunal passed in

OA 671 of 2013 was given effect to and appointment letter was issued. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner strenuously argues that the order in OA 671 of 2013 was passed as the learned advocate appearing for the respondents therein conceded that the applicants therein who have been found unfit in C-I category and have not been absorbed as Parcel Porters, can be considered against alternative posts. Such concession does not bind the Union of India and on the rudiments of the said order in OA 671 of 2013, Sandip cannot claim similar benefit. He further submits that the learned Tribunal while issuing the impugned order dated 19th September, 2019, did not appropriately consider the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union – vs- Union of India & Ors., reported in 2003(11)SCC

590. Mr. Betal, learned advocate appearing for the Sandip denies and disputes the contention of Mr. Chakraborty and submits that after the OA 671 of 2013 was disposed of taking into account the concession of the learned advocate, the Senior DCM passed an order on 12th January, 2014 rejecting the applicants’ claim placing reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods

Porters’ Union (supra). The learned Tribunal upon dealing with the said issue, rightly directed that it was the bounden duty of the Railways to explore other avenues to adjust the said Parcel Porters against appropriate posts. He further submits that in course of hearing of the OA preferred by Sandip, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner consciously agreed that the said OA can be disposed of in the same way as OA 671 of 2013. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Indisputably, the order passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 671 of 2013 has attained finality as the writ petition preferred against the said order has been disposed of in favour of the original applicants by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the SLP preferred against the order passed in WPCT 80 of 2019 by the petitioner herein and others has already been dismissed. It is well-settled that the contents of a judgment need to be read together and not in isolation. A particular line or paragraph cannot be picked up and highlighted. The judgment delivered in A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union (supra) does not disable the Railway Administration from adjusting the Parcel Porters against alternative posts. In the order impugned, the learned Tribunal considered the judgment delivered in A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters’ Union (supra) in its totality and rightly passed the order. The contention of Mr. Chakraborty that the Railway Administration is not bound by the concession of the learned advocate is not acceptable to us since such concession is not a wrong concession on a question of law and if given effect to would not result in violation of any statutory rules and regulation. Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court form time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. The Railway Administration having extended the benefits to persons similarly situated with Sandip cannot now take a contradictory stand. In the said conspectus, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and the writ petition being WPCT 74 of 2020 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 with all requisite formalities.

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)