“Cannot Maintain Double Standards”: Calcutta HC Pulls Up Centre For Selective Compliance Of Court Order Over Andaman DRMs Regularisation Row

The Calcutta High Court has held that the Union Government cannot selectively comply with a binding judicial decision by implementing one part of it while resisting the rest on the ground of “policy,” in a case concerning regularisation of Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

Deciding an appeal in Union of India & Ors. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Ors., a Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Smita Das De upheld the direction to consider the 2023 regularisation scheme, coming down heavily on the Centre's conduct.

The Court observed that the Union had already facilitated compliance with the earlier judgment by approving and disbursing nearly ₹300 crore towards wages, and therefore could not turn around and oppose the scheme on policy grounds, remarking that “the Union of India… cannot maintain double standards, on the one hand facilitating compliance… and on the other, denying to comply with the rest of the judgment on the ground of 'policy decision'.”

The dispute arose from earlier litigation where the High Court had directed payment of 1/30th of the minimum pay scale plus dearness allowance to DRMs in terms of a 1988 Office Memorandum, and a subsequent Division Bench in 2022 had further directed the Administration to frame a regularisation scheme within three months. The Administration complied by formulating the 2023 Scheme, but the Union Government later refused to grant approval, leading to fresh litigation.

Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that the earlier Division Bench judgment had attained finality and was binding on the Administration, noting that “the Administration is debarred by the principle of res judicata… having failed to challenge the same.” It further clarified that even if certain observations were argued to be beyond the original relief, “res judicata binds the parties… whether in the nature of obiter dictum or not.”

Importantly, the Bench also held that the Union Government itself was bound by the earlier judgment despite not being a formal party, in view of its conduct and knowledge of the proceedings. The Court noted that the Centre had approved substantial financial outlays and participated in the implementation process, and yet chose not to challenge the judgment.

In such circumstances, it held that “the UoI… is bound by the judgment… having acceded to the same by facilitating compliance… and having not preferred any challenge thereto.” The Bench underscored that the Centre could not approbate and reprobate in the same breath by accepting the financial consequences of a judgment while resisting its logical conclusion.

Dealing with the argument that courts cannot interfere in policy matters or direct regularisation in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in Umadevi, the High Court drew a distinction, holding that the present case was not about framing a new policy but about implementing a scheme already directed and framed pursuant to binding judicial orders. It observed that “the present lis… is not a framing of a Scheme but the implementation of the same,” thereby rejecting the Union's reliance on policy autonomy.

The Court also rejected the contention that the scheme had been framed under “threat of contempt,” stating that compliance with judicial orders is not optional.

In a sharp remark, it held that “a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court is binding on the litigants… [and] the Administration did not do a favour to the Court by complying with the same.”

Ultimately, the Bench concluded that once the earlier judgment had attained finality and was acted upon, neither the Administration nor the Union could resile from it, reinforcing the principle that executive discretion cannot be invoked to dilute binding judicial directions.

Case: Union of India & Ors. v. Andaman Sarvajanik Nirman Vibhag Mazdoor Sangh & Ors.

Case No: MAT/70/2026

Click here to read order