Disposed¶20

Bishwajit Chaki v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Calcutta HC1 May 2024WPA/881/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; North Bengal State Transport Corporation (NBSTC); death in harness; father Pranay Kumar Chaki, driver, died 14.01.2011; mother's application dated 22.05.2013 unattended; petitioner's representation dated 04.01.2024 unattended; direction to respondent no. 3 to decide representations and pass reasoned order within 6 weeks; WPA 881 of 2024; Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri; Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.; disposed of without costs; allegations deemed not admitted.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the respondent no. 3 to decide the petitioner's representations/application and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of 6 weeks from date; writ application disposed of without any order as to costs. ¶20

Bishwajit Chaki Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents ought to be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground following the death of his father, a driver with the NBSTC, while in service. +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Having regard to the nature of the claim and the materials on record, the respondents should, at the first instance, take a decision as regards the representations made by the petitioner and his mother and at least make the petitioner aware of the fate of his application.

¶17

Key takeaways

The respondent no. 3 was directed to decide the petitioner's representations/application and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of 6 weeks from date.ratio¶18
Since no affidavits were called for, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri), WPA 881 of 2024: Biswajit Chaki v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. The petitioner sought a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground, his father late Pranay Kumar Chaki having been employed as a driver with the North Bengal State Transport Corporation (NBSTC), joining in November 1988 and expiring in harness on 14th January 2011. The mother's application dated 22nd May 2013 and the petitioner's subsequent representation dated 4th January 2024 remained unattended, and the petitioner was unaware of the fate of his application. Raja Basu Chowdhury, J., held that the respondents should, at the first instance, take a decision on the representations made by the petitioner and his mother and make the petitioner aware of the fate of his application, directing respondent no. 3 to decide the representations and pass a reasoned order within six weeks. The writ application was disposed of without any order as to costs; since no affidavits were called for, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed not admitted. The court expressed no view on the substantive entitlement to compassionate appointment.

¶1

Item nos. 16 01.05.2024 Saswata

¶2

Calcutta High Court In the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

¶3

WPA 881 of 2024 Biswajit Chaki versus

¶4

The State of West Bengal & Ors .

¶5

Mr. S.M.Obaidullah Mr. Debajit Kundu Ms. Ankita Dey

¶6

…For the petitioner

¶7

Ms. Bedashruti Bose Mr. Sumit Kumar

¶8

…For the State

¶9

Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh Ms. Supriya Singh …For the respondent nos. 2 to 4

¶10

Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.

¶11

The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. The father of the petitioner, late Pranay Kumar Chaki was employed with the North Bengal State Transport Corporation (NBSTC). He had joined the service of the NBSTC in November 1988 as a driver. During his service tenure had, unfortunately, expired on 14^th January 2011.

¶12

Although, the mother of the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner by her application dated 22^nd May 2013, no steps have been taken on the basis thereof.

¶13

¶14

It is also the petitioner’s case that the subsequent representation made by the petitioner on 4^th January 2024 also remains unattended. The petitioner is also not aware as regards the fate of his application for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶15

Mr. Ghosh and Ms. Bose, learned advocates enter appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and on behalf of the State respectively.

¶16

Mr. Obaidullah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents should at least consider the petitioner’s representation.

¶17

Having regard to the nature of claim made by the petitioner and having considered the materials on record and upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I am of the view that the respondents should, at the first instance, take a decision as regards the representations made by the petitioner and his mother and at least make the petitioner aware as regards the fate of his application.

¶18

In view thereof, I direct the respondent no. 3 to decide the petitioner’s representations / applicantion and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of 6 weeks from date.

¶19

¶20

With the above observations and directions, the writ application being WPA 881 of 2024 is disposed of without any order as to costs.

¶21

Since I have not called for any affidavits, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.

¶22

All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order, duly downloaded from this Court’s official website.

¶23

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)

Bishwajit Chaki v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bishwajit Chaki v. the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanyukta Bhattacharjee Vs Union of India and Ors.

Tanima Bandyopadhyay Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Benu Roy Vs Siliguri Municipalcorporation and Ors.

Raj Kumar Chhalani Vs Joint Commissioner of Revenue, State Tax, Jalpaiguri Circle and Ors.

Mukul Islam Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue and Ors.

Canara Bank and Anr. Vs Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)Kolkata and Appellate Authority and Ors.