Dismissed

Sujoy Kumar Jana v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC23 Mar 2023WPA/21975/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court directed the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, to dispose of a pending gratuity application filed by the petitioner within six months. The Court ordered expedited hearing and disposal without adjudicating the merits of the claim.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no.2 to hear and dispose of the petitioner's gratuity application within six months.

Sujoy Kumar Jana Vs State of West Bengal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Calcutta HC (2023)

¶1

Form No.J(2)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

Present:

¶4

The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

¶5

WPA 21975 of 2022

¶6

Sujoy Kumar Jana Vs.

¶7

The State of West Bengal & Ors.

¶8

For the petitioner	:	Ms. Senjuti Sengupta Mr. R. Guha Thakurta Ms. Dipa Roy
For the State	:	Ms. Tuli Sinha
Heard on	:	23.03.2023
Judgment on	:	23^rdMarch, 2023.

¶9

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

¶10

The present writ application has been filed inter alia praying for a direction upon the respondent no.2 to dispose of the Gratuity Case No. G-69 of 2019.

¶11

Mr. Guha Thakurta, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was employed by the respondent no.3 on and from 17^th March, 1980. The petitioner had since been superannuated with effect from 16^th June, 2018, after serving the respondent no.3 for 39 years. Since the respondent no.3 did not

¶12

¶13

make payment of the gratuity, the petitioner applied in Form-I. Incidentally, the petitioner’s application claiming for gratuity was rejected by the respondent no.3. Such fact would corroborate from a communication in writing dated 1^st February, 2019.

¶14

Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner applied before the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) in Form –N. Mr. Guha Thakurta submits that despite filing of such application way back on 7^th March, 2019, such application till date has not been disposed of. Mr. Guha Thakurta further submits that the respondent no.3 in an attempt to defeat the petitioner’s right has been delaying the proceedings. He says that unless a specific direction is issued by this Hon’ble Court directing the respondent no.2 to hear out and dispose of the petitioner’s application, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶15

Ms. Sinha, learned advocate enters appearance for the respondent no. 2 and submits on instruction that the application in Form-‘N’ has been taken up for consideration by the respondent no. 2. Due procedure, as per the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder, are being followed.

¶16

Despite service the respondent no.3 remains unrepresented. Fresh affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.

¶17

Heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Considering the nature of

¶18

¶19

relief prayed for by the petitioner, I am of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ application pending or in inviting affidavits. I find that the petitioner only seeks expeditious disposal of his gratuity case, which has been pending before the respondent no.2 since 7^th March, 2019.

¶20

In such circumstances, I direct the respondent no.2 to hear out and dispose of the petitioner’s application along with objections, if any, raised by the respondent no.3, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.

¶21

I, however, make it clear that I have not gone into merits of the claim of the petitioner and it shall be for the respondent no.2 to decide the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law.

¶22

With the above observation and/or direction, the writ application, being WPA 21975 of 2022 stands disposed of.

¶23

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶24

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be

¶25

given to the parties upon compliance of necessary formalities.

¶26

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)

¶27

Sujoy Kumar Jana v. State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujoy Kumar Jana v. 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

Tata Consultancy Services Limited Vs Jyotirmoy Mukhopadhyay and Anr.

Shalimar Paints Limited Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Shalimar Paints Limited Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Jugunu Lal Kori & Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.

Tejen Mitra & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jagdish Jatav Vs Union of India & Ors.