January 6, 2026

Sl. No.17

Court No.1

s.biswas

WPCT 247 of 2025

Union of India and others

vs.

Dr. Diganta Kumar Das

Mr. D. N. Roy, Senior Advocate

Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury

... for the petitioners

Mr. Ujjal Ray

Mr. Arpa Chakraborty

... for the respondent

Per, Sujoy Paul, A.C.J.

1. Mr. D. N. Roy, learned Senior Advocate for the

petitioners and Mr. Ujjal Ray, learned advocate

for the respondent, are heard on admission.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.01.2025 passed in O.A. 350/01550/2023 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (Tribunal) allowed the original application and set aside the impugned order

dated 7th November, 2023.

3. The admitted facts between the parties are that

the original applicant/respondent herein previously served with Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). The applicant and one Dr. K. S. Reddy while working with the SSB, were declared as surplus. Thereafter they were given appointment

in the petitioner department.

4. The applicant preferred an application for grant of

benefit of Dynamic Assured Career Progression

(DACP) Scheme by counting services rendered by him in the previous department, namely, SSB. The said claim was rejected by communication dated 7th November, 2023 (Annexure P-16), which became the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal.

5. The Tribunal considered that similarly situated person Dr. K. S. Reddy filed O.A. 760/2014 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and the Tribunal allowed his application and directed that services rendered in SSB should be taken into account for the purpose of grant of DACP Scheme’s benefit. The Tribunal further recorded that said order of Tribunal was unsuccessfully challenged by department before the High Court in CWP No.5953 of 2016. Thus, Tribunal directed to extend the same benefit to the present applicant, a similarly situated employee.

6. Criticizing the order of Tribunal, learned senior advocate for the petitioner submits that twin reasons for rejecting the claim mentioned in the impugned order dated 7^th November, 2023 had not been considered by the Tribunal. Thus, the order of the Tribunal is vulnerable and liable to be interfered with.

7. Mr. Ujjal Roy, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and contended that on principle of parity, the applicant deserves similar treatment and Tribunal has not committed any error in extending the same benefit. More so when the order of Hyderabad Bench of Tribunal in case of similarly situated employee has been implemented which is evident from the document at page no.176 of the writ petition. Thus, he supported the impugned order.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Tribunal recorded its findings as under:

“8. We have gone through the Order dated 21.07.2015 of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 760 of 2014 in the case of Dr. K.S. Reddy, Senior Medical Officer (Homeo), Central Government, Health Scheme, Wellness Centre IV, Begumpet, Hyderabad Vs. Department of AYUSH and others (Annexure A-6). The operative part of the judgement is reproduced below:

"12. Having heard both sides counsel and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that this OA. is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & & Anr Vs. Deepak Sood & Others (supra). Hence, this OA is liable to be allowed by following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4446/2008 & Batch. On the other hand, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the respondents in Union of India & Ors. Vs. K. Savitri & Ors, is not applicable to the present case inasmuch as the said judgment is on the issue of counting of past service of the redeployed staff for seniority in the new organization.

13. In the result, the O.A is allowed by holding that the applicant is entitled for counting