ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR RAJYA KARMACHARI MAHASANGH AND ANR. vs THE HONBLE LT.GOVERNOR AND ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]


PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY

MAT/75/2024

ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR RAJYA KARMACHARI
MAHASANGH AND ANOTHER … APPELLANTS

VS.

THE HON’BLE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
AND OTHERS … RESPONDENTS

For the appellants : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar
Ms. Vinita Devi

For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar

Heard on : August 24, 2026, August 25, 2026 &
August 27, 2026.

Reserved on : August 27, 2026

Judgment delivered on : September 03, 2026

Judgment uploaded on : September 03, 2026


AMRITA SINHA, J.

th
1. The judgment dated 12 November, 2024 passed by the
Hon’ble Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the appellants

2

rejecting their prayers for either regularizing their service or to
formulate a policy for regularization of their service is impugned in
the present appeal.
2. By the said judgment the Hon’ble Single Judge held that the
Court cannot direct the Administration to create sanctioned posts
for regularizing the service of the petitioners or to formulate a policy
for regularization of their services. The Court cannot also restrain
the Administration from filling up the vacant posts following
applicable recruitment rules. The Court, however, was pleased to
observe that the petitioners would be at liberty to participate in the
recruitment process sought to be initiated by the authority subject
to the petitioners satisfying the eligibility criteria.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner no. 1 is a
registered Association looking after the affairs of the members of the
Association who are serving as contractual employees under the
respondent no. 2. The petitioner no. 2 is the Secretary of the
Association.

4. The respondent no. 2, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Medical
Education and Research Society (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
Society’) manages the respondent no. 3, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands Institute of Medical Science (ANIIMS). Both the authorities

3

satisfy the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India.
5. The object of the Society is to provide medical education,
medical service and medical research in the Islands. The Society
was set up as per the guidelines of the National Medical
Commission.
6. In January 2015 and February 2015, notices for walk-in-
interview were published and in April 2015, June 2015 and
November 2015 vacancy notices were published by the Society for
filling up certain posts on contractual basis. The essential
educational qualification of the candidates and the age criteria was
prescribed in the said notices. Several candidates participated in the
walk-in-interview as well as responded to the vacancy notices.
Regular Selection Committee verified the testimonials and the
educational documents submitted by the candidates. Regular
interview process by the Selection Committee was conducted.
Thereafter, the members of the Association were selected for the job
and were issued engagement letter on diverse dates.
7. The engagement letters were for a time bound period,
renewable on extension on mutual consent and satisfactory
performance of the candidate. The engagement letter clearly
mentioned that the engagement was on short term contract basis

4

subject to execution of contact agreement. Such engagement will not
confer any claim for future engagement or appointment to any post.
As many as 139 persons were appointed on contract basis, but
formal contract for engagement was never executed by and between
the parties.
8. A couple of specialized Staff Nurses who were serving on
contract basis under the respondent no. 2 was subsequently
absorbed by the respondent no. 3. Though, the employees were
termed as contractual, but in effect, all the employees were made to
work as full time permanent employees of the authority. The
services rendered by the employees are perennial in nature.
9. The respondent no. 3-ANIIMS could function only because of
the satisfactory performance of the members of the appellant’s
Association. Had the appellants not performed their duties
diligently, faithfully and sincerely, then ANIIMS and the Society both
could not have functioned properly for such a long period of time.
10. In March 2020, the respondent no.2, in the meeting of its
Executive Council, accorded approval for creation of 425 posts in
ANIIMS in addition to the 107 posts already created by the
Executive Council in its meeting held in November 2014. The
Executive Council also accorded approval for creation of 5 posts of
administrative and accounting staff of the Society.

5

11. The creation of posts was subject to certain conditions some
of which are-
(a) The posts shall be filled up as per actual requirement of
ANIIMS.
(b) The Society and ANIIMS shall ensure sufficient budgetary
provisions for meeting the financial implication. If required,
additional provision shall be kept in RE and BE through the
Health Department.
(c) The recruitment rule of the posts created shall be framed
and approved by the Society and ANIIMS before regular
appointment of the staff.
(d) The administrative and account posts be filled up on
priority basis so that the retired staff can be appointed to get
the recruitment rules finalized and other works related to
creation of posts and recruitment to be done.
(e) No excess retention of staff than the total numbers of
posts created has to be ensured. If there is any excess staff,
necessary steps shall be taken to curtail the staff strength.
12. The contractual period of the members of the Association was
extended from time to time. During the contractual period of the
employees, ANIIMS published a vacancy notice in December 2021

6

inviting online applications for contractual engagement in the same
posts in which the members of the appellant Association were
engaged.
13. The appellants challenged the said vacancy notice by filing
writ petition being no. WPA/295/2021 on the ground that one set of
contractual employees ought not to be replaced by another. In the
th
writ petition, the Court was pleased to pass an interim order on 10
December, 2021 inter alia, restraining ANIIMS from engaging any
contractual employee in place and instead of the members of the
appellant Association who were already working in the subject posts
for a considerable period of time. The writ petition was finally heard
and dismissed by the Court and the judgment passed in the writ
petition is impugned herein.
14. The sheet anchor of the appellants’ submission is that though
the members of the appellant Association were engaged on
contractual basis, but they were made to perform duties at par as
those of permanent regular employees. The services rendered by the
contractual employees are integral and extremely vital for running
the Society and ANIIMS. The contractual employees were all eligible
to participate in the regular recruitment process had the same been
conducted in the year 2014 when they were engaged as contractual
employees.

7

15. The selection was conducted by a regular Selection Committee
after verification of their testimonials and documents and after
clearing the interview. Several candidates participated in the
selection process and only after the subject contractual employees
were found to be suitable for engagement, they were engaged in
service. Their services were found to be satisfactory for which their
contractual service period stood extended from time to time.
16. The appellants pray for regularization of service of the
members of the Association.
17. In support of the prayer for regularization, learned counsel for
the appellants relies on several decisions:-
(i) Sheo Narain Nagar and Others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432 .
(ii) Vinod Kumar and Others vs. Union of India reported
in 2024 INSC 332 .
(iii) Jaggo vs. Union of India reported in (2024) SCC
OnLine SC 3826 .
(iv) Union of India Rep by Government of Puducherry
and Another vs. K. Velajagan and Others reported in
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 837 .

8

(v) Shripal & Another vs. Nagar Nigam Gaziabad
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 221 .
(vi) Dharam Singh and Others vs. State of UP reported in
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1735 .

(vii) Bhola Nath vs. State of Jharkhand and Others
reported in (2026) SCC OnLine SC 129 .
(viii) Mohammad Sagir and Others vs. Nagar Nigam
Kanpur reported in (2026) SCC OnLine SC 473 .
(ix) Sukhendu Bhattacharjee and Others vs. State of
Assam and Others reported in (2026) SCC OnLine SC
909 .
(x) Judgment dated April 28, 2026 passed in The Union of
India and Others vs. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman
Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh and Others, MAT/70/2026,
I.A. No. CAN/1/2026 and CAN/2/2026 .
(xi) Judgment dated August 25, 2023 passed by the Hon’ble
Division Bench of this Court in The Port Blair
Municipal Council and Another vs. Shri A.
Subramaniam and Others, MAT/14/2023 .
(xii) Judgment/Order dated November 06, 2023 passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Port Blair
Municipal Council and Another vs. Shri A.

9

Subramaniam and Another in Petition(s) for Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23507/2023 .

18. Learned advocate representing the respondents opposes the
prayer of the appellants. It has been submitted that the members of
the appellant Association initially did not pray for regularization.
They prayed for setting aside the vacancy notice that was published
for engaging fresh set of contractual employees by replacing the
existing ones.
19. It has been submitted that as the regular recruitment rules
have not been published till date, accordingly, there is no scope to
regularize the service of the contractual employees.
20. It has been argued that the contractual employees were
engaged in posts which have not yet been sanctioned, hence, there
is no scope to consider their prayer for regularization.
21. It has been stressed by the respondents that the contractual
employees do not have a right to seek regularization. Their
engagement letter clearly mentions that they do not have any right
to seek regular employment. The employees accepted the contract
by noticing the terms and conditions mentioned therein. At this
stage they are estopped from seeking regularization.

10

22. The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others vs.
Umadevi (3) and Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 stands as a
bar to seek regularization by contractual employees who were not
appointed through a regular recruitment process. Since the
members of the appellant Association were not appointed under any
recruitment process, they do not have any legal right to seek
regularization.
23. The learned advocate for the respondents relies on the
judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Madan Singh and Others vs. State of Haryana and Others
reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 628 .
24. The respondents pray for dismissal of the appeal.
25. We have heard and considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of both the parties and have perused the materials placed
before the Court.
26. Both the parties admit that the service of the contractual
employees is very much required and extremely essential for the
day-to-day functioning of the Society and ANIIMS. The contractual
employees acted as foundational/organizational staff of ANIIMS. It is
only because of the services rendered by the contractual employees
that ANIIMS is functioning for the last ten years. If the foundation

11

was not strong enough, it may not have been possible for the
authorities to continue with their mission for such a long period of
time.
27. The service rendered by the contractual employees cannot,
under any stretch of imagination, be treated as temporary or time
bound in nature. The service rendered by them is very vital and
permanent in nature. It is true that the regular recruitment rules
are yet to be framed and published by the respondents for which the
regular recruitment process cannot be initiated by the authority, but
the same ought not to be the ground for not considering the prayer
of the petitioners for regularization.
28. It appears that as the purpose of the respondents is served by
employing contractual employees, they are not feeling the necessity
of framing and publishing the recruitment rules. What was
perceived to be a stop gap arrangement is continuing for more than
ten years by now. The very fact that the authorities are not taking
steps for engaging permanent employees implies that the
contractual employees are enough to fulfill the needs and demands
of ANIIMS. Being satisfied with the performance of the contractual
employees, their services were extended back-to-back on yearly
basis.

12

29. In the instant case, the contractual employees were eligible for
appointment against the regular sanctioned posts on the day the
notice of interview and the vacancy notices were published. By now,
many of the employees have crossed the age bar for appearing in the
regular recruitment process. Not granting permanent status to the
contractual employees after being appointed through a well
publicized recruitment process and after rendering more than twelve
years of uninterrupted, unblemished service is a glaring example of
sheer exploitation of the weak in the hands of the mighty. The same
is absolutely unfair and ought not to be allowed to be perpetrated.
30. The service of the members of the appellant Association
against unsanctioned posts through a well-designed recruitment
process cannot be said to be wholly illegal. The respondents ought
to appreciate that the contractual employees have put in their
glorious service years by providing satisfactory service to ANIIMS. All
on a sudden, their service cannot be termed as illegal, thus,
standing in their way seeking regularization.
31. Prolonged service, similar to regular permanent employees,
after being appointed through a regular selection process in non-
sanctioned posts also should not be a bar for according permanent
status to the contractual employees.

13

32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sheo Narain Nagar (supra)
directed regularization and consequential benefits and the arrears of
pay to the contractual employees in line with the law laid down in
Umadevi (supra).
33. In Jaggo (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically laid
down that the nature of the work performed rather than the label
assigned to the worker, should determine the employment status
and their corresponding rights and benefits. The Court highlighted
the judiciary’s role in rectifying misclassifications and to ensure that
the workers receive fair treatment. The Court held that the
government departments should lead by examples in providing fair
and stable employment.
34. The Court was of the opinion that engaging workers on
temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are
integral to the organization’s functioning, not only contravenes
international labour standards but also exposes the organization to
legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair
employment practices, government institutions can reduce the
burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security and uphold
the principle of justice and fairness. The Court directed
regularization of service.

14

35. In Vinod Kumar (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
the essence of employment and the right thereof cannot be
determined by the initial terms of appointment. The continuous
service of the employees performing duties indistinguishable from
those in permanent posts, and their selection through a process
that mirrors regular recruitment, constitute a substantive departure
from the temporary and scheme specific nature of their initial
engagement. Reliance on procedural formalities at the outset cannot
be used to perpetually deny substantive rights that have accrued
over a considerable period through continuous service. The Court
directed regularization of the employees.
36. In Shripal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed
regularization of workmen who were engaged without issuance of
formal appointment letter. The Court after elaborate discussion of
the law relating to regularization held that, the ratio laid down in
Umadevi (supra) cannot serve as a shield to justify exploitative
engagement persisting for years without the employer undertaking
legitimate recruitment. The Court observed that Indian labour law
strongly disfavours perpetual contractual engagement in
circumstances where the work is permanent in nature.
37. In Velajagan (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated
the proposition laid down in Shripal (supra) that Umadevi (supra)

15

cannot be used as a shield to justify exploitative engagement
persisting for years without the employer undertaking legitimate
recruitment process to deny relief of regularization.
38. In Dharam Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court

observed that the practices of long-term extraction of regular labour
under temporary labels corrodes confidence in public administration
and offends the promise of equal protection. The observations in
Shripal (supra) and Velajagan (supra) where reiterated once again.
The Court directed regularization and creation of supernumerary
posts along with pay protection. A compliance affidavit was directed
to be filed by the respondents for ensuring compliance of the
direction passed by the Court.
39. In Bhola Nath (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed
regularization of the contractual employees. The Court concluded
that the respondent-State is not justified in continuing contractual
employees on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the
nomenclature of contractual engagements and thereafter denying
them consideration for regularization. The Court held that
contractual stipulation purporting to bar claims for regularization
cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of
contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights
and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action

16

from constitutional scrutiny. The State, as a model employer, cannot
rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi
(supra) to justify prolonged ad-hocism or discard long serving
employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and
constitutional governance.
40. In Mohammad Sagir (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that each case is to be decided on its own facts. In a case, where
engagement is for a substantial length of time, a presumption arises
that the work for which the workmen is engaged is of a perennial
nature and there exists a vacant post. It is difficult to accept that
workmen are engaged as substitutes for regular workers if they have
worked for a long period of time.
41. In Sukhendu (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after
noticing that the workers discharged their duties over a prolonged
period of time, directed regularization even though they were not
appointed against sanctioned posts and the decision in Umadevi
(supra) prohibits such regularization. The Court was of the
considered view that reliance on Umadevi (supra) for not
regularizing the service of the workmen is misplaced.
42. Sukhendu (supra) took note of the Full Bench decision of the
Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in matter of Jitendra Kalita & others
vs. State of Assam & others reported in 2006 (2) GLT 654

17

wherein the Court held that the solution to the issue of
regularization must be undertaken by the State as a policy measure.
Regularization, where permissible in law, is an executive function
and its falls within the domain of policy and administration. Courts
do not grant prior approval to executive decisions. It is not for the
Court to authorize the executive to exercise powers already vested in
it. The Court was pleased not to accept the sweeping proposition
that no regularization can be made in respect of employees not
appointed against duly sanctioned posts.
43. The Court held that the State cannot rely upon the mere form
of engagement to deny fair and equitable treatment to employees
who have served for long years by discharging essential and
recurring function of the State. Long and continuous service is a
relevant consideration, and the State, as a model employer, is under
a constitutional obligation to act with fairness, consistency and
reasonableness. The practice of retaining employees for decades
under deceptively titled designations, while simultaneously
extracting regular work integral to the administration, has been
disapproved. The Court directed regularization.
44. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in MAT/70/2026,
I.A. No. CAN/1/2026 and CAN/2/2026 in the matter of The Union
of India and others vs. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag

18

th
Mazdoor Sangh and others delivered judgment on 28 April, 2026
and reiterated the principle that the expression ‘backdoor entry’
cannot be wielded by the State as a shield to mask perpetual
temporary engagement of a workforce to discharge sanctioned
function of perennial nature which are integral and essential to the
functioning of the concerned department/instrumentality of the
State. The works performed, to be eligible for regularization, has to
be integral and essential to the functioning of the employer. The
engagement should be against sanctioned ‘posts’ or sanctioned
‘functions’ and the engagement should be for a substantial length of
time in a work of perennial nature.
45. The judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this
th
Court on 25 August, 2023 in MAT/14/2023 in the matter of the
Port Blair Municipal Council and Another vs. Shri A. Subramaniam
and Others was not interfered with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
th
on 06 November, 2023 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s). 23507/2023 in the matter of The Port Blair Municipal Council
and Another vs. Shri A. Subramaniam and Another wherein the
Court refused to interfere with the order of absorption passed by the
th
Hon’ble Single Bench on 12 December, 2022 in WPA/27/2022 in
the matter of A. Subramaniam vs. the Lieutenant Governor and
others.

19

46. The learned advocate for the respondents stresses on the
decision in Madan Singh (supra) wherein the Court was pleased to
set aside the notification issued by the authority for regularizing the
ad hoc employees. It is, however, noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was pleased not to disturb the service of the employees who
were regularized but directed their placement at the lowest pay scale
admissible to the post.
47. In the case at hand, the Hon’ble Single Judge decided the
issue in November, 2024. Since thereafter the law relating to
regularization of contractual employees has evolved to a great
extent. The embargo in Umadevi (supra) has been duly addressed
and the ratio laid down therein has been interpreted in favour of
regularization. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly laid down
the manner as to how the issue of regularization of contractual
employees has to be dealt with. It has been held in no uncertain
terms that Umadevi (supra) is not a complete bar to regularize
service of the employees who have rendered uninterrupted
continuous service to the State for more than a decade even in
unsanctioned posts.
48. The Hon’ble Single Judge was pleased to disallow the prayer of
the appellants primarily relying on the decision passed in the matter
of Umadevi (supra).

20

49. Upon a relook of the prevailing law relating to regularization,
we are inclined to allow the prayer seeking regularization of the
appellants. It is held that the entry into service of the contractual
employees of the members of the appellant Association cannot be
said to be either illegal or backdoor appointment. The employees
were engaged by the Selection Committee after a regular selection
process was conducted where several candidates participated. The
service of the contractual employees is absolutely integral to the
functioning of the Society and ANIIMS.
50. The posts where the contractual employees are serving have
been created by the Society and ANIIMS, which are autonomous
bodies. The Office Order creating 425 + 107 posts is already in place
th
since 4 March, 2020 and the recruitment rules have also been
approved by the General Body of the Society as will be evident from
th
the communication dated 14 June, 2024 by the Deputy Secretary,
(Health) addressed to the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Health and
Family Welfare. In fact, the aforesaid communication clearly
mentions that there are 705 + 5 posts for creation on regular basis.
th
51. The aforesaid communication dated 14 June, 2024
distinctly mentions that ANIIMS is a premier National Medical
Commission recommended medical institution established by the
Society under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration. The

21

Society is presided by the Lieutenant Governor and Executive
Council of the Society is chaired by the Chief Secretary, Andaman
and Nicobar Administration. The letter further discloses that ANIIMS
is managed by the Society since its inception in the year 2015.
ANIIMS has all the facilities as per the National Medical Commission
and serves 550 bed facility as the referral hospital for the entire
Union Territory of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
th
52. It appears that after forwarding the letter dated 14 June,
2024, no follow-up steps have been taken to reach the recruitment
process to its logical conclusion.
53. The Court has already come to a considered conclusion that
the authority does not appear to be genuinely inclined to follow up
with the regular recruitment process as the authority’s demand is
satisfied with the performance of the contractual employees. The
urge and the necessity to hold regular recruitment process cannot
be felt by the authority for which steps for conducting regular
recruitment process appears to be deliberately delayed.
th

54. By merely placing reliance on the OM dated 4 January,
2024, issued by the Ministry of Finance laying down the
compendium of instructions for creation, abolition of posts in
autonomous bodies under Central Government, the respondents

22

cannot keep the issue of regularization pending for an indefinite
period of time.
55. As already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the issue
of solving the problem of regularization has to be dealt with by the
State, accordingly, we are of the opinion that the respondent nos. 2
and 3 ought to consider the prayer of the appellants to either
regularize or absorb the contractual employees in regular service in
a proper scale of pay on and from their initial date of appointment in
line with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
precedents mentioned hereinabove.
56. The aforesaid respondents are also directed to proceed for
conducting regular selection process for filling up of the balance
vacancies of the posts which was created in the meeting of the
Executive Council after the contractual employees are regularized/
absorbed in service.
57. The respondents are directed to take a decision at the earliest
but positively within a period of ninety days from the date of
communication of this judgment.
58. MAT/75/2024 is, accordingly, disposed of. The impugned
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge stands set aside.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

( AMRITA SINHA, J. )

23

BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.


59. I have perused the judgment of my learned Sister and have
agreed with the findings made therein. However, I make the
following observations.
60. The issue of appointing casual workers, contractual workers
and temporary workers in different Government Establishments and
Undertaking is continuing for the last 55 years, giving rise to several
litigations. At some point of time authorities regularized the casual
workers, contractual workers and temporary workers and at some
point refused to regularize them, for which the employees/workers
had to go from pillar to post, by making representation to
Authorities/Employers, moving Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal/Administrative Tribunal and Constitutional Courts.
61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, State
of Karnataka and Others vs. Umadevi (3) and Others reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 1 observed a bar to regularisation of contractual
employees who were not appointed through a regular recruitment.
Thus, in the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court discouraged
backdoor entry and directed appointment through regular
recruitment process. Although the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was in the year 2006 but subsequent thereto although
employees in many establishments are appointed through regular

24

recruitment process but the same are made on contractual basis
and are deprived of regularisation using the decision of Umadevi
(supra) as a shield to avoid regularization and absorption.
62. In the instant case the appointment of the employees under
the Respondent Authority was made by creating posts, framing
recruitment procedure and thereafter appointing the
employees/members of the appellant who participated in the
interview/selection process having prescribed qualification. After
being recruited and rendering satisfactory service and their
contractual period being extended, if after ten years of service
employees are made to undergo another selection process under
new rules along with new incumbents and thereby causing
harassment and hardship to them making their livelihood uncertain
it will be nothing but a travesty of justice.
63. India being a welfare State, Social and Economic Justice is a
part of the Preamble to the Constitution. Thus, the Government
Authorities as well as Courts while deciding a Constitutional issue
have to keep in mind the principles of social and economic justice.
Labour Laws and Service Jurisprudence should be read and
interpreted in a manner so that social and economic justice may be
achieved.

25

64. In the case of Sudhuram Bansal vs. Pulin Behari Sarkar
reported in AIR 1984 SC 1471, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that social justice is the recognition of greater good to a
larger member without deprivation or accrual of legal rights of
anybody. If such a thing can be done then social justice must
prevail over any technical rule. As between two parties if a deal is
made with one party without serious detriment to the other, than
the Court would lean in favour of the weaker section of the society.
65. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of this
judgment duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J. )