IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Lanusungkum Jamir And The Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay MAT 1143 of 2025 With CAN 1 of 2025 Prasanta Mukherjee & Ors.

Vs.

Food Corporation of India & Ors.

For the Appellants : Mr. Samiran Mandal : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Sardar : Mr. Nitish Samanta : Ms. Sreemoyee Datta : Ms. Aparna Mandal :

For the respondents Mr. Kamal Kr. Chattopadhyay : Mr. Tanjir Ali : Ms. Rimi Chatterjee Heard on : 28/07/2025 Judgment on : 04/08/2025 Rai Chattopadhyay, J. :-

1. In the instant appeal, the appellants have challenged an order of the Hon’ble Single Judge dated July 4, 2025, delivered in the writ petition no. WPA 23337 of 2022. The applicant/applicants have been the petitioners in the writ petition as mentioned above. To state in a nutshell, the grievance of the appellants/applicants in the instant appeal is that the Hon’ble Single Judge, in spite of accepting that no dispute between the parties should survive in view of the settlement arrived at between them, has directed and given liberty to the respondent/FCI, to proceed with all administrative action necessary for the proper functioning of the FCI, in accordance with law.

2. Learned advocate, appearing for the appellants has submitted that the appellants are the contractual casual labourers of the respondent FCI, posted at food storage depot, Bikna, District Bankura. They had filed the writ petition as above seeking relief that no effect should be given to the letter of the Manager, Industrial Relation – Labour, FCI dated October 12, 2022, thereby discontinuing the engagement of the appellants as contractual casual labourers, at the place where they are now working and also seeking appropriate direction for regularisation of their employment with the respondent FCI. That, during pendency of the said writ petition, the parties have come to a settlement in a meeting dated August 22, 2023, by dint of a resolution dated same, that is August 22, 2023. It is submitted that according to the settlement arrived at between the parties, it has been settled and decided unanimously that the appellants would continue to work in FCI till the normal age of superannuation as applicable to category-IV employees of the Corporation. That, such decision was particularly in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court dated January 14, 2010 and of this Court dated December 12, 2022. As per decision in the said meeting, the provisions under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, were made applicable in case of the appellants and also that the Divisional Manager, Bankura would issue an appropriate certificate. It has been submitted and also endorsed in the said resolution, that the settlement so arrived at by dint of the said resolution was acceptable to all the parties.

3. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that after being a consenting party in the said resolution dated August 22, 2023, there would not be any scope for the respondent FCI to divert from what has been settled. In such circumstances, the Court accepts that parties have entered into an unanimous settlement. Despite the same, it is submitted, that the Court has directed in a manner which has an effect of being diverted from the already settled terms and conditions, as mentioned above, so far as the service conditions of the appellants are concerned. Allegedly, following the impugned order, an order of transfer of the appellants has been issued, by dint of which the appellants have been directed to demit office at their present place of posting and join elsewhere. According to the appellants, in terms of the orders of this Court and the Supreme Court as well as in terms of the settlement arrived at between the parties, the respondent/FCI would be obliged to engage the appellants for the rest of their service period, at the place where they are presently working and in discharge of the duty, which they are presently carrying on. Therefore, libert