Dismissed

Sri Bikky v. C.E.S.C. Ltd. and Anr.

Calcutta HC6 Jul 2022WPA/5803/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the absence of the petitioner and representatives for the respondent, the High Court at Calcutta examined the maintainability of a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner's father. Relying on precedents, the court held that writ jurisdiction does not extend to service disputes against CESC Limited, dismissing the petition as not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

Relief of compassionate appointment sought by petitioner dismissed as writ petition is not maintainable.

Sri Bikky Vs C.E.S.C. Ltd. and Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

06.07.2022 Ct. No.23 pg.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WPA 5803 of 2022

¶5

Sri Bikky Vs.

¶6

Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited & Anr.

¶7

Mr. Soumya Majumdar Mr. Debanjan Mukherjee … For the respondents/CESC

¶8

The petitioner sought an adjournment on 13^th June, 2022 to address this Court on the point of maintainability of the writ petition taken on behalf of the employer – Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Limited (in short “CESC Limited”). The matter again appeared on 22^nd June, 2022 when no one appeared in support of the writ petition. Even today, no one appears in support of the writ petition. No adjournment is sought for. No one has also applied to participate in the proceedings through virtual mode.

¶9

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the matter is taken up in the absence of the petitioner on the point of maintainability.

¶10

Learned advocate for CESC Limited cites a judgment reported in 2003 (3) CHN 357 (Mithai Lal Passi v. CESC Limited & Ors.) wherein it has been categorically held that no writ petition lies against CESC Limited with

¶11

¶12

regard to a service related dispute between itself and its employee. This view has been accepted in a judgment and order dated 12^th January, 2009 passed in WP 17843 (W) of 2008 (Argha Mukherjee v. CESC Limited & Anr.). Apart from these two judgments, I find that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 (Federal Bank Limited v. Sagar Thomas & Ors.).

¶13

The petitioner’s father was an employee of CESC Limited who died-in-harness on 15^th July, 2002. The petitioner was a minor at that point of time. The petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. The relief claimed by the writ petitioner does not come within the exceptions laid down in Sagar Thomas (supra).

¶14

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶15

Dismissal of this writ petition, however, will not prevent the writ petitioner from seeking redressal of his grievances in an appropriate forum on the selfsame cause, if permissible in law.

¶16

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶17

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)

Sri Bikky v. C.E.S.C. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bikky v. C.E.S.C. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Dayal Poddar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bansh Bahadur Yadav @ Bans Bahadur Yadav Vs Coal Fields Limited and Ors.

Nandalal Daira Vs the Durgapur Project Ltd. and Ors.

Chapala Kora Vs M/S Eastern Cola Fields Ltd. and Ors.

Sanati Hansda and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rita Mahato Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.