Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

(Appellate Side)

W.P.A. NO 26582 OF 2025

SRI KAUSHIK CHATTERJEE & ANR.

VS.

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT, CALCUTTA & OTHERS

BEFORE: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sarwar Jahan

Ms. Tapati Sarkar Mr. S.N. Thander

Ms. Sahina Pervin

For the High Court Administration : Mr. Jaydip Kar, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Victor Chatterjee

For the respondent no. 5 : Mr. Dwaipayan Banerjee

Mr. M. Hazra

Mr. Ahasnish Ghosh

Heard On : 04.12.2025 Judgment On : 04.12.2025

SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:

1. Matter is heard in presence of learned advocates representing the

parties.

2. In the writ petition challenge has been thrown to the recommendation dated 26th August, 2025 of the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Office/ Workplace in the High Court, Calcutta (for short, “said Committee”) wherein certain observations and recommendations were made against the petitioners.

3. Mr. Jahan, learned advocate representing the petitioners submits that petitioners are primarily aggrieved by said recommendation dated 26th August, 2025 and petitioners have also challenged the order dated 16th September, 2025 of the Registrar General of this Hon’ble Court.

4. During course of hearing, Mr. Kar, learned Senior Advocate representing the High Court Administration has pointed out that after the recommendation was issued by said Committee on 26^th August, 2025 taking note of the same Registrar General has passed an order dated 16^th September, 2025 for implementation of the recommendation.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though there is an appeal provision under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, “said Act of 2013”) but same does not apply in the present case as a result whereof petitioners have approached this Court with this writ petition, inter alia, questioning recommendation dated 26^th August, 2025 and order of the Registrar General dated 16^th September, 2025. According to the petitioners, Section 18(1) of said Act of 2013 confers right upon the affected party to prefer an appeal in the event relevant service rules governing the service of the affected party contemplates preferring appeal to the court or tribunal but here in the instant case Rule 21 of the Calcutta High Court Service (Conditions of Service and Recruitment) Rules, 1960 (for short, “said Rules of 1960”) though provides provision for preferring an appeal against the order of Registrar, Appellate Side or Original Side but there is no provision of preferring appeal before the court or tribunal.

6. In order to refute such submission made on behalf of the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate representing the High Court Administration has relied upon Section 18 of said Act of 2013 vis a vis Regulation 21 of said Rules of 1960. It is emphasized on behalf of the High Court Administration that it is provided under Section 18(1) of said Act of 2013 that an appeal can be preferred before the court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the affected person. Rule 21 of said Rules of 1960 which governs the service of the petitioners provides provision for preferring appeal before the Hon’ble Chief Justice against the order of the Registrar General.

7. It is contended on behalf of the High Court Administration that since service rules applicable in case of the petitioners contemplate appeal under Rule 21 same needs to be pressed into service, as a result whereof at this stage appeal needs to be preferred before the Hon’ble Chief Justice in terms of Rule 21.

8. In consideration of the respective submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking note of the relevant provisions of said Act of 2013 and said Rules of 1960 Court finds that as recommendation was made by said Committee in terms of Section 13(3) of said Act of 2013 and there is existence of appeal provision in the relev