Disposed¶16

Union of India and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Mondal and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 Jun 2025WP.CT/92/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.C.T. 92 of 2025; Union of India and others v. Swapan Kumar Mondal and others; TBOP Scheme; BCR Scheme; Time Bound One Promotion; Biennial Cadre Review; financial upgradation; stepping up of pay; seniority; Central Administrative Tribunal; error apparent on the face of the record; liberty to seek review; Arunesh Chandra Ghosh; Department of Rehabilitation; Postal Department Howrah Division; writ petition disposed without deciding merits; Madhuresh Prasad, J.; Supratim Bhattacharya, J.; decided 12th June, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the writ petitioners to seek review of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits. ¶16

Union of India and Ors. Vs Swapan Kumar Mondal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

12^th June, 2025 (D/L No.03) Ct. No.4 (SKB)

¶2

W.P.C.T.92 of 2025

¶3

Union of India and others Versus

¶4

Swapan Kumar Mondal and others

¶5

Mr. Udayan Chakrabarty, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subrata Santra

¶6

… for the petitioners.

¶7

Mr. S. K. Datta, Mr. Barun Chatterjee

¶8

… for the respondents.

¶9

The issue arises for consideration in the present proceedings whether the applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short „Tribunal‟) were entitled to financial up gradation under the Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme from a date on which one Arunesh Chandra Ghosh was granted the same.

¶10

It was the case of the applicants before the Tribunal that Arunesh Chandra Ghosh was junior to them and, therefore, they were entitled to stepping up of their pay at par with the said Arunesh Chandra Ghosh.

¶11

The Tribunal has allowed the claim by recording that it is not disputed that the applicants were senior to Arunesh Chandra Ghosh.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from bare perusal of the averments made in paragraphs 6 and 12 to the reply filed before the Tribunal, it is apparent that the petitioners have raised a dispute in this regard by saying that

¶13

¶14

Arunesh Chandra Ghosh was granted the benefit of Time Bound One Promotion (TBOP) Scheme and Biennial Cadre Review (BCR) Scheme by taking into consideration his past service rendered in another organization being the Department of Rehabilitation, before joining to the Postal Department, Howrah Division. There is no basis for the Tribunal to record that “it is not disputed”.

¶15

The sum and substance of the submission is that the order suffers from error apparent from the face of the record, which fact is disputed and denied by the learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶16

In view of the nature of submissions advanced by the petitioners regarding there being an error of record, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the writ petitioners to seek review of the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the submissions.

¶17

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)

¶18

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)

Union of India and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Mondal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Mondal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India and Ors. Vs Amitava Ghosh

Amit Athaley Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jharna Roy and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Suranjan Modak Vs Union of India and Ors.

Commissioner of Central Tax,Cgst and Central Excise,Howrah Commissionerate Vs Mihir Sen Barman and Ors.

Sumit Mondal Vs Union of India and Ors.