KARTICK SARKAR AND ORS SATRAJIT SINHA ROY vs INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMP REVENUE, KOLKATA AND ORS — WP.ST/108/2026
Case under No Act Section NA. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 22nd May 2026.
CNR: WBCHCA0219752026
Next Hearing
21st May 2026
Filing Number
WP.ST/109/2026
Filing Date
14-05-2026
Registration No
WP.ST/108/2026
Registration Date
14-05-2026
Judge
HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Coram
HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
GROUP A (WRIT MATTERS) ( 1 )
Sub-Category
Miscellaneous ( 16 )
Judicial Branch
MANDAMUS SECTION
Decision Date
22nd May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KARTICK SARKAR AND ORS SATRAJIT SINHA ROY
Respondent(s)
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMP REVENUE, KOLKATA AND ORS
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD , HON'BLE JUSTICE PRASENJIT BISWAS
NEW MOTION
MOTION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-05-2026 | NEW MOTION |
| 22-05-2026 | MOTION |
Orders
The court dismissed the writ petition filed by casual daily-rated employees seeking regularization. The court held that the petitioners had already availed benefits under a 2011 Labour Department notification granting them job security, and therefore had no enforceable right to regularization under obsolete 1979-1980 notifications. The court found no constitutional violation under Articles 14 and 16 since the petitioners failed to establish they were initially appointed through a constitutionally compliant process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed the writ petition filed by casual daily-rated employees seeking regularization. The court held that the petitioners had already availed benefits under a 2011 Labour Department notification granting them job security, and therefore had no enforceable right to regularization under obsolete 1979-1980 notifications. The court found no constitutional violation under Articles 14 and 16 since the petitioners failed to establish they were initially appointed through a constitutionally compliant process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts