Disposed¶21

Debasish Mukherjee v. NTPC Ltd. and Ors.

Calcutta HC18 Jul 2025MAT/2362/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition RVW 257 of 2025; CAN 1 of 2025; MAT 2362 of 2023; Calcutta High Court; error apparent on the face of the record; review jurisdiction; order dated 18.7.2025; Division Bench; Memorandum of Review; grounds 2 and 3 recorded for satisfaction of appellant; submission not recorded; proposed SLP to Supreme Court; retiral dues; admissible retiral dues; without prejudice; NTPC Ltd.; premature retirement; unauthorized absence; deputation DVC; EPFO pension; appearing in person; Soumen Sen Acting Chief Justice; Chaitali Chatterjee (Das); disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Appeal and application disposed of; grounds 2 & 3 of the Memorandum of Review recorded for the appellant's satisfaction; signing of documents for release of admissible retiral dues clarified to be without prejudice to the appellant's rights and contentions.

Debasish Mukherjee Vs NTPC Ltd. and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record of the order dated 18.7.2025 warranting exercise of the court's jurisdiction under review. +2 more

¶20

Court's answer

No error apparent on the face of the record dated 18.7.2025; the court therefore cannot exercise its jurisdiction under review.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Each of the grounds stated in the Memorandum of Review had been duly considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in disposing of the appeal.

¶15

Key takeaways

Having regard to the fact that the appellant is appearing in person, the court gave him the opportunity to make his submission and recorded ground numbers 2 & 3 of the Memorandum of Review for his satisfaction.ratio¶20
The documents required to be signed for the purpose of release of the appellant's admissible retiral dues shall be without prejudice to his rights and contentions.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Calcutta High Court, 26.9.2025 (Soumen Sen, C.J. (Acting) with Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J) — RVW 257 of 2025 (CAN 1 of 2025) with MAT 2362 of 2023, Debasish Mukherjee (in person) v. NTPC Ltd. & Ors. The appellant, appearing in person, sought review of the Division Bench order dated 18.7.2025 (which had disposed of his appeal concerning premature retirement and release of retiral dues from NTPC), contending that submissions made before the coordinate Bench were not recorded, preventing him from approaching the Supreme Court by way of SLP. The reconstituted Bench (following retirement of former Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam) found no error apparent on the face of the record dated 18.7.2025 warranting review, held that each ground of the Memorandum of Review had been duly considered by the Division Bench, and — as an accommodation to the appellant in person — reproduced and recorded grounds 2 and 3 of the Memorandum for his satisfaction. It further clarified that documents to be signed for release of his admissible retiral dues shall be without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Appeal and application disposed of; no monetary amount quantified in this order.

¶1

1 26.9.2025 Ct. No. 1 SB

¶2

RVW 257 of 2025 CAN 1 of 2025 (appropriate order) with MAT 2362 of 2023 Debasish Mukherjee Vs. NTPC Ltd. & Ors. Mr. Debasish Mukherjee (appearing- in- person) …for the appellant Mr. Soumya Majumder, Sr. Adv. Mr. Uttam Kumar Mondal Mrs. Maitree Roy … for NTPC Ltd.

¶3

The appellant is appearing in person.

¶4

It is submitted that he is unable to approach the Hon’ble

¶5

Supreme Court against the order passed on 18.7.2025 as his submission was not recorded in the said order. In the Memorandum of Review in paragraph 2 he has referred to the submission he made before the coordinate Bench but not recorded. This Bench was reconstituted after the retirement of Hon’ble Mr. T.S. Sivagnanam, the former Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court.

¶6

Although it is argued that his submission was not recorded and may be recorded to enable him to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears from the order dated 18.7.2025 that the previous Hon’ble Division Bench has considered all aspects of the matter. However, for the satisfaction of the petitioner who is appearing in person, we reproduce paragraphs 2 and 3 of the grounds stated in the Memorandum of Review:

¶7

¶8

“ 2.Following points recorded in the judgement dated 18^th July, 2025 were neither submitted nor queried during hearing on 18^th July, 2025 but were taken from the respondent's affidavit dated 19th March 2024. Corresponding points from petitioner's affidavit 30th August 2024 and various orders on record may kindly be recorded.

¶9

Recorded Submissions	Submissions may kindly be Recorded
The first objection raised	The employer gave no
by the appellant's	objection to fresh writ
employer is that the	petitioner's filing
appellant was last posted	application (WPA 22944
in Orissa and the	of 2022) in place of WPA
challenge to the order of	7832 of 2020 (Order
premature retirement will	dated 23.09.2022) for
not be maintainable before this Court.	self-same cause of action.
Decision of the premature	Decision of Premature
retirement was	retirement was
communicated to the writ	communicated in Kolkata,
petitioner at Orissa.	West Bengal.
Recorded Submissions	Submissions may kindly be Recorded
The ground of alleged	Unauthorized absence
unauthorized absence	has already been
during the period when the	canvassed and pending
appellant was in	before Hon'ble Calcutta
deputation with DVC,	High Court vide WPA
Kolkata need to be	2018 of 2020 and its
canvassed before some	contempt application
other appropriate Court.	CPAN 379 of 2021.

¶10

¶11

N.T.P.C. Ltd.	was always	Paymen	t or enhanced
ready and	willing to	EPFO	pension were
release the	amount but	never	released. The
appellant has	refused the	cheque	may kindly be
same.		handed	over in the court.

¶12

Following not recorded submission may kindly be

¶13

recorded.

¶14

Hon'ble Single Bench	Hon'ble Division Bench
Cause of action is order of	Cause of action is
premature retirement and	Performance and
performance is merit	Unauthorized Absence is merit
Hon’ble Division Bench is	pleased to overrule both
Cause of action and merit	determined by Hon'ble
Single Bench. According to t and guiding tests for dete	he established definitions rmining cause of action
without going into merits paragraphs of the Hon'ble Su in Law notes to Ld. Amicus	as set in the referred preme Court Judgements Curiae, Annexure "X-1"
Unauthorized Absence is the	cause of action.

¶15

Each of the grounds has been duly considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in disposing of the appeal

¶16

Moreover, Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the NTPC has submitted that the NTPC is still willing to release the amount as recorded in paragraph 15 of the order dated 18.7.2025. However, the appellant has refused to sign the necessary documents shall be without prejudice.

¶17

¶18

The appellant submits that he was asked to sign the necessary papers which would likely to cause prejudice to the applicant in the SLP, he propose to file.

¶19

We make it clear that the documents required to be signed for the purpose of release of his admissible retiral dues shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellant.

¶20

We, however, do not find any error apparent on the face of the record dated 18.7.2025 for which we can exercise our jurisdiction under review. However, having regard to the fact that appellant is appearing in person, we gave him the opportunity to make his submission and recorded ground numbers 2 & 3 for his satisfaction.

¶21

The appeal and the application are disposed of.

¶22

[Soumen Sen, C.J. (Acting)]

¶23

(Chaitali Chatterjee (Das), J)

Debasish Mukherjee v. NTPC Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Debasish Mukherjee v. NTPC Ltd. 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

Samarendu Mukherjee Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India Vs Ajay Kumar Jolly and Ors.

Chairman Cum Managing Director, Food Corporation of India and Ors. Vs Sunil Saha and Ors.

Shankar Rui Das Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Debasish Mukherjee Vs NTPC Ltd. and Ors.

Bharat Kumar Jhawar Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.