Dismissed

Uday Singh v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Calcutta HC13 Oct 2023FMA/4691/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court bench dismissed a second appeal filed by school teachers challenging non-introduction of IT scheme, holding policy decision not ex facie arbitrary and noting appellants virtually abandoned the matter.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with observation that writ petitioners failed to substantiate similarity between schemes and appellants virtually abandoned the appeal.

Uday Singh Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2023)

FMA 4691 of 2015

Item-6. 13-10-2023

Uday Singh & Anr. Versus Ct. 8 The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶5

The parties are not represented nor any accommodation is prayed for on behalf of the parties.

¶6

The appeal had appeared in the warning list of cases on and from 19^th September, 2023 with a clear indication that the said matter shall be transferred to the Regular Bench on 6^th October, 2023. The appeal is again listed today in the main cause list. All the parties have sufficient notice about the listing of the matter before the Regular Bench on and from 6^th October, 2023.

¶7

The appeal was filed on 15-10-2015. The record shows that no attempt has been made to move this appeal after it was filed. No step has been taken to serve notice and prepare paper books. It clearly shows that the appellants are not interested to proceed with the appeal and have virtually abandoned the appeal.

¶8

However, we have considered the materials on record and the impugned order. Having regard to the fact that the writ petitioners have not been able to substantiate that the SSUU is of the same nature as that of ILIP or SLIP Schemes, the writ petitioner was dismissed with the following observations:

¶9

“The writ petitioners have not been able to substantiate that the SSUU is of the same nature as that of ILIP or SLIP Schemes. These are the issues of fact. The Principal Secretary, School Education Department has gone into

¶10

¶11

such issues and have given his reasons as to why SSUU scheme is not the same as that ILIP or SLIP Scheme. Reasoning given by the Principal Secretary, School Education Department has not been demonstrated to be perverse. Therefore, the writ petitioners have not been able to substantiate that there was been change in the nomenclature of the scheme only and that the original scheme has been reintroduced as SSUU scheme. Moreover, the Government has decided not to introduce ILIP or SLIP scheme after taking into consideration all the factors as noted in the impugned order.”

¶12

Moreover, the policy decision of the Government cannot be entertained with in the writ jurisdiction unless it is ex facie arbitrary or in breach of any constitutional rights and obligations.

¶13

In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

(Uday Kumar, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)

Uday Singh v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Singh v. State of West Bengal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Hazra Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Moynamoni Khan (Dey) Vs Piyali Khan

Susmita Pal Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Souvik Sinha Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Sandhya Middya Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Aradhana Ghosh Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.