Dismissed¶18

Amit Athaley v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC11 Jun 2025WP.CT/112/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: transfer; interim order; Central Administrative Tribunal Kolkata Bench; O.A. No. 620 of 2025; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II; R.O. Kolkata to R.O. Mumbai Bandra; petitioner joined transferred posting reserving rights; respondents' reply not filed for eight weeks; direction to file reply within two weeks; no observations on merits; writ petition W.P.C.T. 112 of 2025 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to ensure filing of their reply before the C.A.T. within two weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order, to facilitate consideration of the pending O.A. on merits; Court expressly made no observations on the merits of the pending matter. ¶18

Amit Athaley Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging the non-grant of an interim order on the petitioner's transfer should be pursued or disposed of, given that the petitioner has already joined the transferred place of posting and his substantive challenge is pending before the C.A.T. in O.A. No. 620 of 2025. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The Writ Petition W.P.C.T. 112 of 2025 was dismissed.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The Court deemed it appropriate to direct the respondents to ensure filing of their reply before the C.A.T. within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order, so as to facilitate consideration of the matter on merits.

¶16

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it made no observations touching upon the merits of the pending matter before the C.A.T.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (challenge pending in O.A. No. 620 of 2025), aggrieved by non-grant of an interim order in respect of his transfer as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II from R.O., Kolkata to R.O., Mumbai (Bandra), moved this Court by W.P.C.T. 112 of 2025. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had already joined the transferred place of posting while reserving his right to question the validity of the transfer, and that the respondents had not filed any reply before the C.A.T. for eight weeks. The Court directed the respondents to ensure filing of the reply before the C.A.T. within two weeks from receipt/production of a copy of the order so as to facilitate consideration of the matter on merits, expressly disclaimed having made any observations touching the merits of the pending matter, and dismissed the writ petition. Bench: Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya, JJ.

Amit Athaley v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Athaley v. Union of India 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

Krishnadas Chatterjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Anupam Sen Vs Rina Sen and Anr.

National Projects Construction Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs Samir Dhar and Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs Amitava Ghosh

Jharna Roy and Ors. Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.