Disposed

Netai Chandra Paul v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC16 Dec 2020WPO/417/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Writ Petition on Conditional Notice, the High Court dismissed the proceedings as not maintaining a useful purpose since the petitioner's request for pension was pending before the respondent company. The court directed the company to decide the representation within six weeks in accordance with the gazette notification allowing condonation of service deficiency.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; respondent company directed to decide the pending representation within six weeks and release pension if eligible.

Netai Chandra Paul Vs the State of West… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Calcutta HC (2020)

¶1

ORDER SHEET

¶2

WPO 417 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

NETAI CHANDRA PAUL VS.

¶4

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

The Hon’ble JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA Date: 16^th December, 2020

¶7

Mr. Debdutta Basu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Deblina Chattaraj, Advocate for West Bengal Transport Corporation. Mr. Subhabrata Dutta, Mr. Debashis Sarkar, Advocates for the State respondent.

¶9

The Court : Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.

¶10

The petitioner is a retired employee of the West Bengal Transport Corporation Limited. He retired from service on attaining his normal age of superannuation on 31^st July, 2019. The petitioner admits that the qualifying service period for getting 50 per cent pension is ten years but he has served for a period of nine years, nine months and two days.

¶11

The petitioner relies upon a gazette notification which was published on 24^th December, 2001 bearing No. CNB/F-3 Pension/G-328 wherein there is a provision for condonation of deficiency in service. Paragraph 19 of the aforesaid gazette notification mention that, on any condition which it may

¶12

¶13

think fit to impose, the Company may condone a deficiency upto six months in the qualifying service of an employee.

¶14

The petitioner submits that his prayer for grant of pension may be considered in accordance with the aforesaid provision.

¶15

The petitioner made representation before the respondent Company praying for granting pension in his favour on 3^rd September, 2020. The same not being considered, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

¶16

As it appears that the prayer of the petitioner is pending consideration at the end of the respondent Company, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the writ petition pending. The same is, accordingly, disposed of by directing the respondent no. 3 to take a decision with regard to the representation made by the petitioner, strictly in accordance with the relevant rules, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order. The said respondent shall pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner immediately thereafter.

¶17

In the event the said respondent is of the opinion that the petitioner was eligible for getting pension, then steps will be taken by him for releasing the pension in his favour, at the earliest, upon completion of necessary formalities.

¶18

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties after completion of usual legal formalities.

¶19

( AMRITA SINHA, J.)

¶20

¶21

Netai Chandra Paul v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Netai Chandra Paul v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Chakraborty Vs the State of West Bengal and 20 Others

Parwez Khan Vs the State of West Bengal and 5 Others

Purnabasi Behera Vs Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and Ors.

Swapan Kumar Panda Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Akramul Haque Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kanan Das@ Kanan Bala Das Vs State of West Bengal