Court Dismisses Union of India's Petition, Emphasizes Equality in Employment for Similarly Situated Doctors
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has dismissed a petition filed by the Union of India, thereby upholding the regularization of Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya, an ad hoc doctor, from the date of his initial appointment. The court emphasized the principles of equality in law and equal treatment in employment, directing the Union of India to extend similar benefits to Dr. Bhattacharyya as were granted to other doctors in analogous positions.
The Division Bench, comprising Mr. Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J., and Mr. Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J., ruled on July 27, 2026, that denying Dr. Bhattacharyya regularization from his initial appointment date, while granting it to his peers, was a violation of the fundamental principles of equality. The court highlighted that all 25 doctors, including Dr. Bhattacharyya, had been recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and were similarly situated.
The judgment came after a series of legal battles initiated by Dr. Bhattacharyya, who sought regularization from his initial appointment date, following the precedent set by other similarly situated doctors. Previously, the learned Tribunal had ruled in favor of Dr. Bhattacharyya, a decision which the Union of India challenged but failed to overturn at various judicial levels, including the Supreme Court.
The court scrutinized past orders and found no merit in the Union's argument that earlier judgments were personal and not precedential. The bench concluded that the Union of India, as a model employer, could not contravene the principles of equality and equal treatment in employment.
The Union of India's reliance on a memo dated May 19, 2026, and previous judgments, which suggested that regularization should be prospective, was dismissed by the court. The judges noted that the suitability of all 25 ad hoc doctors, including Dr. Bhattacharyya, had been established through a comprehensive evaluation by the UPSC, which included assessments of their ACRs, bio-data, and performance.
The court's ruling reinforces the legal principle that similarly situated employees should not be treated differently, especially when their circumstances and qualifications are identical. This judgment is expected to have wide-ranging implications for cases involving the regularization of ad hoc appointments in government services.
Bottom Line :
Regularization of ad hoc appointments - Held, when similarly situated persons were regularized from the date of their initial appointments based on UPSC recommendations, denying the same to one among them violates the principle of equality in law and equal treatment in employment.
Statutory provision(s): The judgment did not explicitly reference statutory provisions but involved principles of equality in employment and precedents from service law cases.
Union of India v. Dr. Sanjoy Bhattacharyya, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2964152
