Surajit Bhunia v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC6 Mar 2025WP.CT/129/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land loser employment benefit claim; Tribunal direction in O.A. No. 548 of 2022 (order dated 28.04.2022) to consider claim; non-compliance led to contempt proceedings C.P.C. No. 117 of 2022 before CAT Kolkata Bench, dropped by Tribunal order dated 09.05.2023; writ petition filed thereafter; respondents placed rejection of claim on record; Court found Tribunal's order complied with via rejection order, declined to opine on merits, left petitioner free to assail rejection order in accordance with law; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petitioner left free to assail the order of rejection in accordance with law. ¶¶18

Surajit Bhunia Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petitioner left free to assail the order of rejection in accordance with law.

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the rejection of the petitioner's claim for employment benefit as a land loser is unsustainable, given that under the advertisement/scheme the land loser family, as defined, was to be treated as the beneficiary unit for grant of a job, whereas the rejection order contends only one person per plot of land acquired can be considered. +1 more

¶¶13

Ratio / Principle

This Court found that the Tribunal's order passed in O.A. No. 548 of 2022 has been complied with by issuing the order of rejection, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rejection.

¶¶14

Key takeaways

The petitioner was left free to avail his remedies to assail the order of rejection in accordance with law.ratio¶¶16
Observation made in passing that the scope and jurisdiction of contempt is well settled by now, while noting the present proceedings arise out of rejection of the petitioner's application for contempt before the Tribunal.obiter¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.C.T. 129 of 2023 (decision date 06.03.2025) — Surajit Bhunia v. The Union of India & Ors. The petitioner's claim for benefit of employment as a land loser was directed to be considered by the Tribunal (Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench) under its order dated 28th April, 2022 in O.A. No. 548 of 2022. On the respondents' non-compliance, the petitioner filed contempt proceedings C.P.C. No. 117 of 2022, which the Tribunal dropped by its order dated 9th May, 2023, whereupon the present writ petition was filed. In the present proceedings the respondents placed on record rejection of the petitioner's claim. Finding that the Tribunal's order in O.A. No. 548 of 2022 had been complied with by issuing the order of rejection, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of that rejection, the Court left the petitioner free to avail his remedies to assail the order of rejection in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition.

¶1

06.03.2025 (D/L-8) Ct. No.4 (B.K.N.)

¶2

W.P.C.T. 129 of 2023

¶3

Surajit Bhunia Vs.

¶4

The Union of India & Ors.

¶5

Mr. Manish Kumar Das

¶6

...for the Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Sauvik Nandy, Sr. Adv., Mr. Subrata Santra

¶8

...for the Union of India

¶9

Affidavit of reply filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶10

The petitioner’s claim for benefit of employment as a land looser was directed to be considered by the Tribunal under its order passed on the earlier Original Application filed by the petitioner bearing O.A. No. 548 of 2022 by its order dated 28^th April, 2022. The respondents were not complying with the direction of the Tribunal and consideration was not accorded to the petitioner which compelled him to invoke the jurisdiction of contempt before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. The petitioner thus filed C.P.C. No. 117 of 2022 which was considered by the Tribunal and the contempt proceedings dropped. Since the order of the Tribunal passed on the petitioner’s Original Application bearing O.A. No. 548 of 2022 was not complied by according any consideration, yet the

¶11

¶12

petitioner’s contempt application was dropped by the Tribunal by its order dated 9^th May, 2023 the present writ petition was filed. In the present proceedings the respondents have placed on record rejection of the petitioner’s claim.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim is unsustainable in view of the advertisement under which the land acquisition was made holding out particular representation to the persons who are loosing their lands. According to the scheme the land looser family, as defined in the advertisement were to be considered a beneficiary unit for the purposes of grant of benefit of a job. The whole premise has now been changed by the authorities and it is now contended in the rejection order that only one person against a plot of land acquired can be considered. The same is thus unsustainable.

¶14

We find that the present proceedings arises out rejection of the petitioner’s application for contempt before the Tribunal the scope and jurisdiction of contempt is well settled by now. In view of the fact that the Tribunal’s order passed in O.A. No. 548 of 2022 has been complied by issuing the order of rejection, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the same. We leave it to the petitioner to

¶15

¶16

avail his remedies to assail the order of rejection in

¶17

accordance with law.

¶18