"Cannot Maintain Double Standards": Calcutta HC Slams Centre Over Selective Court Order Compliance in Andaman DRM Row

In a landmark ruling that underscores the binding nature of judicial directives on the Union government, the Calcutta High Court's Circuit Bench at Port Blair has directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to approve a regularization scheme for thousands of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Smita Das modified a single judge's order, holding that the Centre cannot cherry-pick parts of a final court judgment—paying Rs 300 crore in arrears while resisting regularization—under the guise of "policy decisions." This echoes media reports highlighting the court's sharp rebuke: "Cannot Maintain Double Standards."

Roots in a Wage Battle: DRMs' Decade-Long Fight for Parity

The saga began in 2018 when Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh—a trade union for DRMs—and its president challenged an Andaman & Nicobar Administration circular slashing wages, seeking benefits under a 1988 DoPT office memorandum (OM) guaranteeing 1/30th of minimum pay plus dearness allowance for work equivalent to regular employees.

A single judge in 2019 "read up" the 2017 circular to align with the 1988 OM, granting parity irrespective of sanctioned posts. The Administration appealed, and a 2022 Division Bench modified it to apply benefits from 2017 onward but upheld no distinction between DRMs on sanctioned or casual posts. Crucially, it directed framing a regularization scheme within three months, based on the Administration's own assurances. No appeal followed, letting it attain finality.

Contempt proceedings ensued for non-compliance, leading to Supreme Court intervention in 2023. The apex court closed them after the Administration framed the 2023 Scheme and secured Rs 300 crore from the Centre for arrears to 4,010 DRMs. Yet, DoPT rejected approval in December 2023, citing violations of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3) (2006). A fresh writ led to the single judge's February 2026 order for approval—now under appeal by Union of India (UoI) and DoPT.

UoI's Policy Shield vs. Workers' Equity Cry

Appellants' Arsenal (UoI & DoPT): ASGI S.D. Sanjay argued the 2023 Scheme flouts Umadevi (3) by regularizing 7,520 DRMs en masse, ignoring "illegal vs. irregular" distinctions, sanctioned posts, and backdoor entries. Not party to prior proceedings, UoI claimed no binding effect. Framing/approving schemes is executive policy, not mandamus territory ( State of Bihar v. Sachindra Narayan ). Financial burdens (cascading exchequer impact) and prior 2015 regularization bar judicial overreach ( Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen ).

A&N Administration's Flip-Flop: ASGI K.M. Nataraj contended courts can't mandate policy ( Vivek Krishna v. UoI ), and the 2022 direction exceeded the writ prayer ( Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan ).

DRMs' Counterstrike: Counsel Gopala Binnu Kumar highlighted judicially mandated scheme post-1988 OM recognition of equal work (8-hour shifts matching regulars). Vacant posts (4,245 in APWD alone) and Attorney General's advice during SC proceedings bind UoI. Rejections ignore Umadevi clarifications (DoPT's 2020 OM) and recent evolutions ( Jaggo v. UoI ).

Unpacking Umadevi's Evolution: From Rigid Bars to Humane Equity

The bench dissected Umadevi (3) —barring backdoor permanency sans due process—and M.L. Kesari , carving exceptions for "irregular" employees (10+ years continuous service sans court orders, qualified, on sanctioned posts). But recent Supreme Court trilogy— Jaggo v. UoI (2024), Shripal v. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad (2025), Dharam Singh v. State of UP (2025)—expands "irregular" to include perennial, essential "sanctioned functions," decrying exploitation via endless temporariness.

Res judicata bound A&N Administration (party to 2022 order). UoI, despite non-party status, facilitated partial compliance (Rs 300 crore via MHA/Finance, Attorney General's pivotal role) and knew via directed notice—estoppel applies. "Policy" shield crumbles if arbitrary or Article 14-violative; here, it masks equality denial for long-serving DRMs doing regulars' work ( 1988 OM premise).

The 2023 Scheme aligns, with scrutiny safeguards; minor tweak incorporates expanded "irregular" tests.

Court's Razor-Sharp Observations

  • "The Union Government... is estopped from reopening the issue after having acted in concert with the Administration to facilitate compliance... The standards governing the Union Government have to be judged on a much higher pedestal than ordinary citizens. Thus, it cannot maintain double standards."
  • "Umadevi (3) (supra) was not exhaustive but left it open for other categories... to be included within the zone of consideration for [regularization]."
  • "Indian labour law strongly disfavours perpetual daily-wage... engagements where the work is permanent in nature." (Echoing Shripal )
  • "Threat of contempt or no threat, a judgment... is binding... The victim mentality... cannot be given a premium."

Modified Mandamus: Scheme Greenlit with Equity Upgrade

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, modifying the single judge order: DoPT must approve the 2023 Scheme within 90 days, inserting a proviso expanding "irregular" to cover qualified DRMs on sanctioned functions/posts, with 10+ years perennial essential work.

This mandates regularization against vacancies/supernumerary posts (co-terminus), halting future casual hires for regular work. Implications? Precedent for DRMs nationwide, curbing gig-like exploitation in public service; financial hit upfront but ends perpetual temporariness. A humane pivot from Umadevi 's rigidity, prioritizing equity for the unseen workforce propping up remote administrations.