Dismissed¶28

Union of India v. Sandip Maity @ Maiti

Service – Railway Group-'D'/Parcel Porters

Calcutta HC23 Jul 2026WP.CT/74/2020

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPCT 74 of 2020; Union of India vs. Sri Sandip Maity @ Maiti; Eastern Railway; Parcel Porter; unfit in C-I category; OA/350/1624/2014; OA 671 of 2013 (Joyhind Prasad); WPCT 80 of 2019; SLP No.29381/2024; binding effect of counsel's concession; equal treatment of similarly situated persons; A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters' Union 2003(11)SCC 590; Senior DCM order 12.01.2014; writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the learned Tribunal in OA 671 of 2013 has attained finality, the writ petition preferred against it having been disposed of in favour of the original applicants by a co-ordinate Bench and the SLP preferred thereagainst having been dismissed. ¶22

Union of India Vs Sandip Maity @ Maiti — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the concession recorded in OA 671 of 2013 binds the Union of India so as to entitle Sandip Maity, on the basis of that order, to similar benefit of consideration/adjustment against alternative posts. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The concession made by the learned advocate for the respondents in OA 671 of 2013 binds the Union of India, since it is not a wrong concession on a question of law and giving effect to it would not result in violation of any statutory rules and regulations.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

¶22

Key takeaways

Read together and not in isolation, the judgment in A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters' Union does not disable the Railway Administration from adjusting Parcel Porters against alternative posts; the learned Tribunal considered that judgment in its totality and rightly passed the impugned order.ratio¶25
All persons similarly situated should be treated similarly; the Railway Administration, having extended benefits to persons similarly situated with Sandip, cannot now take a contradictory stand.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service — Railway Group-'D'/Parcel Porters — Parity and binding effect of concession. Union of India (through General Manager, Eastern Railway) challenged the learned Tribunal's order dated 19.09.2019 in OA/350/1624/2014, whereby Sandip Maity — found unfit in C-I category and not absorbed as a Parcel Porter — was granted relief in light of the order in OA 671 of 2013 (Joyhind Prasad and others), which was disposed of on 14.11.2014 recording the Railways' concession that such porters could be considered against available vacancies of Porters in other categories commensurate with their medical fitness or less than C-I category. The OA 671 of 2013 order was upheld in WPCT 80 of 2019 (order dated 21.08.2024 granting appointment to respondent nos. 5 and 8 who had not superannuated) and SLP No.29381/2024 was dismissed on 16.12.2024; the order was thereafter given effect to and appointment letters issued. Held: (i) the order in OA 671 of 2013 has attained finality; (ii) the concession was not a wrong concession on a question of law and binds the Union of India; (iii) A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods Porters' Union, 2003(11)SCC 590, read in its totality, does not disable the Railway Administration from adjusting Parcel Porters against alternative posts, and the Tribunal rightly considered it in its totality; (iv) persons similarly situated must be treated similarly, and the Railways, having extended benefits to such persons, cannot take a contradictory stand. Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

23.07.2026 Item No.01 Court No.01 KCP

¶2

WPCT 74 of 2020

¶3

Union of India

¶4

- Versus - Sri Sandip Maity @ Maiti

¶5

Mr. Sukanta Chakraborty

¶6

Ms. Sarda Sha

¶7

…. For the petitioner Mr. Uday Narayan Betal Mr. Barun Chatterjee Mr. Mriganka Patra

¶8

…. For the respondent

¶9

The present writ petition has been preferred by

¶10

the Union of India represented through the General Manager, Eastern Railway challenging an order dated 19^th 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 14^th 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

¶11

¶12

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 21^st 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 21^st August, 2024, the petitioner and others preferred a Special Leave Petition being SLP No.29381/2024 which was also dismissed by an order dated 16^th December, 2024. Subsequent thereto, the order of the learned Tribunal passed in

¶13

¶14

OA 671 of 2013 was given effect to and appointment letter was issued.

¶15

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.

¶16

He further submits that the learned Tribunal while issuing the impugned order dated 19^th 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 .

¶17

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 12^th January, 2014 rejecting the applicants’ claim placing reliance upon the judgment delivered in the case of A.I. Railway Parcel & Goods

¶18

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶30

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

¶31

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

Union of India v. Sandip Maity @ Maiti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Sandip Maity @ Maiti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rashed Rashid Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Abu Sohel Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Santosh Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gautam Ghosh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Safiya Hasan, Repd. by Her Father Sk. Tabrikul Islam Vs Partha Pratim Chatterjee, Secretary and Anr.

The Principal Commissioner of Customs Administration and Airport Vs Ajay Kumar Gond and Ors.