Calcutta HC: Government Cannot Deny Final Orders in Andaman DRM Case

The Calcutta High Court has recently affirmed that the government cannot refuse to implement final judicial decisions, asserting that compliance with court orders is a constitutional obligation once they achieve finality. This significant ruling emerged from the case of Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh versus Lieutenant Governor and others, focusing on the regularisation and service benefits of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRM) in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

The dispute, rooted in a 1988 office memorandum concerning the pay and regularisation of casual labourers, has developed into an extended legal struggle for labour rights. The Union of India had contested the full implementation of a court-backed regularisation framework, citing policy considerations and legal precedents established by the Supreme Court in the Umadevi case. It also argued that the framework was adopted under the threat of contempt proceedings and should not be considered binding.

Court Rejects Government Arguments

The High Court systematically rejected these submissions. It stated that judicial authority is derived from the Constitution and cannot be disregarded on claims of compliance under pressure. The bench observed that such reasoning would undermine the rule of law by suggesting that court orders are only binding when coercive measures are in place. The court further asserted that the State cannot evade enforcing fundamental and human rights by invoking policy constraints, emphasising that once a judicial decision gains finality, the government is duty-bound to implement it entirely.

Regarding the delay in addressing the claims, the court dismissed the Centre’s argument that they were time-barred. It highlighted that the workers had consistently pursued relief through appropriate legal channels. The matter had previously been settled before a National Lok Adalat, where authorities had agreed to grant bonuses to eligible workers. When this settlement was not honoured, the petitioners approached the High Court, which then directed compliance. Continued non-compliance led to contempt proceedings, demonstrating the sustained efforts by the workers to enforce their rights.

Inconsistencies in Administration's Approach

The court also pointed to inconsistencies in the administration’s approach. It observed that authorities had initially accepted judicial directions but later attempted to distance themselves from their implications. The bench held that such a position could not be sustained. Reiterating that the State is not a privileged litigant, the court affirmed that government authorities are bound by judicial decisions in the same manner as any other party. Compliance with court orders, it added, is not discretionary but mandatory.

Recruitment Age Limit Concerns Raised

In a related development highlighting concerns about administrative uniformity, Member of Parliament Bishnu Pada Ray recently called for a review of age criteria in an ongoing recruitment process within the islands. He noted inconsistencies in the prescribed age limits for certain Group C posts, where categories such as constables and firemen have lower upper age caps compared to other posts. Ray urged authorities to align the criteria with the administration’s 2025 guidelines to ensure fairness and expand eligibility for candidates.

These developments collectively underscore the necessity for consistency in governance, with the court’s ruling reinforcing that policy cannot override constitutional obligations, particularly when the enforcement of rights is involved.

Source

https://thewaveandaman.com/calcutta-high-court-order-government-compliance-andaman-case/