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.

Case disposed Next hearing 21-May-2026

CNR: WBCHCA0219752026

Filing Number

WP.ST/109/2026

Filing Date

14-May-2026

Registration No

WP.ST/108/2026

Registration Date

14-May-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

22-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

No Act Section NA

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KARTICK SARKAR AND ORS SATRAJIT SINHA ROY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMP REVENUE, KOLKATA AND ORS

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 22-May-2026

    Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad,hon'ble Justice Prasenjit BiswasView PDF

    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.

  3. 22-May-2026

    Motion

    Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad , Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

  4. 21-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  5. 14-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP.ST/108/2026

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case