Form No. J.(2)

Item No.14 Court No. 1

KS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

HEARD ON: 02.12.2025

DELIVERED ON: 02.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN

WP.CT 120 of 2025 Nilotpal Banerjee

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Appearance:- Mr. Ujjal Roy

Mr. Arpa Chakraborty

Sk. Abdur Rahim

…..For the Petitioner

Mr. D. N. Roy, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sayani Chowdhury

…..For the U.O.I./Respondent No.1

Mr. Anubhav Sinha

Mr. Shirsho Banerjee

Ms. Shruti Shaw

…..For the Respondent Nos.2 to 5

JUDGMENT (ORAL):

Per, Partha Sarathi Sen, J.:-

1. The subject-matter of the instant writ petition is the judgment and order dated

24.04.2025 as passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench,

Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the “said Tribunal” in short) in O.A.

No.350/01124/2022.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the order of termination of the original applicant as has been communicated to him vide office order dated 03.02.2016, a copy of which has been annexed at page 78 of the instant writ petition.

3. At the time of hearing, Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner/original applicant took us to page no.55 of the instant writ petition being a copy of Memo dated 30.08.2012. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that on perusal of the said Memo dated 30.08.2012 it would reveal that the writ petitioner was appointed to the Post of Upper Division Clerk in the E.S.I. Corporation, West Bengal Region (hereinafter referred to as “the Corporation” in short). It is argued that from the various Clauses of the said Memo of Appointment it would reveal that the appointment of the present writ petitioner/original applicant was primarily on a temporary basis subject to satisfactory completion of the period of probation, performance in the job and other criteria, as prescribed in the rules and orders on the subject.

4. In course of his argument, Mr. Roy, then took us to page no.74 of the instant writ petition, being a copy of the office order dated 30.07.2015 as has been issued by an instrumentality of the said Corporation. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that from the said office order it would reveal that the present writ petitioner alongwith 17 other employees of the Corporation were found to be successfully completed the period of probation.

5. It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that the issuance of office order dated

30.07.2015 categorically indicates that the present writ petitioner alongwith 17 other employees of the Corporation have been confirmed in the service.

6. Drawing attention to page no.75 of the instant writ petition being a copy of the Memo dated 06.11.2015 it is argued by Mr. Roy that all on a sudden such Memo was issued to the writ petitioner indicating that the certificate of disability as has been submitted by the writ petitioner was found to be not genuine and rather the same, according to the Corporation, was found to be false and fake, which was duly replied to by the present writ petitioner in writing indicating that such disability certificate was obtained by him from a disability camp as held on

05.08.2010 at Mohammad Bazar Block Primary Health Centre.

7. It is further submitted by Mr. Roy that without giving due adherence to the reply dated 19.11.2015, the respondent/Corporation herein passed the order of termination dated 03.02.2016 of the writ petitioner under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the “Temporary Service Rules, 1965”, in short).

8. It is submitted by Mr. Roy that on perusal of the order of termination it would reveal that the respondent/Corporation has wrongly come to a conclusion that the present writ petitioner was still a temporary employee without looking to the fact that the writ petitioner has successfully completed the period of probation and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the employment of the writ